[1. Accusations brought by Thomas Usk against
John Northampton]

[N.B. This document is damaged or partially
illegible at beginning and end; lacunae are indicated by ellipses,
unless the possible text can be hazarded.]

On 7 ... 1384, I, Thomas Usk, in the presence of John
[Charneye coroner] of London wrote
this statement with my own hand and vouched for its accuracy.
To ... [give coun]sel during
the term of John Norhampton mayor there should
[come] ... to ... that is, in
John Willyngham's tavern in the Bow ... of
twenty of the crafts that support him, one or two men who are chosen to
be common councillors
for this year, and ... John More mercer,
Richard Norbury mercer, and
William Essex draper, together
with myself, Thomas Usk, to write down their petitions ... so that
those who were present might, at [the
next session of] the common council be unanimous in their
position on these matters, and vote in accord on the day of that
common council ... and be ... to accomplish what John Norhampton,
John More, Richard Norbury and William Essex purposed at, whether
honest or dishonest, and did ... because Sir
William Walworth and other persons
of status, as aldermen and common councillors, were opposed to the
or[dinances of John] Norhampton,
it was decided by John More, Richard Norbury and William Essex that
the mayor should take as his councillors whomever he wished during
his term of office, and have nothing to do with those who opposed him.
And that those crafts antagonistic towards him should be represented
only by the number [traditional]
chosen by each craft, and no more; whereas those crafts that sided
with him should be represented by as many as they wished. Thus he
planned to have so many supporters that the opposing side would be
powerless. Of this I accuse John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury,
and William Essex.

It was the full intention of John Norhampton and his advisors 
that is, John More, Richard Norbury, and William Essex  and of
all the crafts that sided with him that, with whatever support from
men of power that they might obtain, four points of law be established
and enforced. That is, that the aldermen should be replaced from year
to year; that the common council should be selected by the crafts;
that no victualler should hold judicial
office; and that all non-Londoner victuallers should be free to
bring their victuals to the city to sell, by retail as much as by
any other method, without having
to pay for the franchise.
His intent was indeed that all the ordinances that were made during
his term of office, no matter how bad, should be maintained forever
after, through the power of the people, against any mayor that would
overturn them. To this end, once the most respectable and wisest
townsmen had dissociated themselves with such worthless councils,
the mayor John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury, and
William Essex drew to their cause the common people, to give
life-or-death support to this programme. At every council meeting
was John More, Richard Norbury, and William Essex, and at some
Adam Bame. But otherwise the mayor
made his own decisions; one Willyngham,
a scrivener, and one ... Marchaund clerk
made a record of many matters in my absence, and on occasion were
more privy [to information] than I.
Certainly the overall purpose of those named above was to have
the town in their control, and have it governed by their decisions,
and to suppress or banish from the town all those powerful enough
to resist them; and for the rest who lacked power, to have those
under their thumbs forever. Of this I accuse John Norhampton,
John More, Richard Norbury, and William Essex.

Because all the long-established officers in the town were no friends
to the mayor or his ideas, all those officers were to be removed over
time, and replaced by others who agreed with and supported his viewpoint;
for they said that such persons as had intentions contrary to his
were enemies to good intent. This was increasingly used to stir up
the poor people and make them more fervent in their rebelliousness
towards the great men of the town and towards its officers. The
people were told that the great men wished to keep the people oppressed
in their lowly status forever; this notion, continually put forward,
caused dissension to arise between the respectable persons and
the lesser people of the town. Of this I accuse John Norhampton,
John More, Richard Norbury, and William Essex.

In preparation for the day when John Norhampton was elected for
a second mayoral term, because Sir
John Philpot had opposed
the bad things done, as indicated above, John More took the lead
in arranging for a petition to be drawn up in the name of
the common council, demanding Sir John repay the money he had
borrowed during his mayoralty. The plan was for him thereby
to be condemned as unsuitable to hold any office in the town
in future. Of this I accuse John More.

In preparation for that second election, great arrangements were put
in hand by John More, Richard Norbury, Adam Bame, William Essex, and
many others, including myself Thomas Usk, to ensure that on that
day the commons would choose as
mayor John Norhampton, and no-one else. With the intent of obtaining
[during that term of office]
confirmation by royal statute of all his reforms, so that they
would endure perpetually. Thus the reforms would both be fixed
by statute and maintained through the power of the people, as
mentioned above. Of this I accuse John More, Richard Norbury,
Adam Bame, and William Essex.

In preparation for the next parliament following this, mayor
John Norhampton made me, Thomas Usk, go to the commons to inform
them of the ordinance against
the fishmongers, and to gain their support for, among other
things, choosing Richard Norbury and William Essex
to represent them in the parliament.
He in turn was to arrange for the aldermen to choose John More
and Thomas Carleton[as their representatives]
for the same. And so it was done, and they pursued matters contrary
to the perpetual franchises of London. Of this I accuse John Norhampton.

At that parliament effort was made to obtain
an authorization directed to
the mayor to punish usurers,
whether initiated by a private complaint or by indictment; which
letters patent allowed sentence to be passed on any man who had
been proven to commit such an act, or had been party thereto. In
this regard, many of the most respectable townsmen have, through
false schemes and plots planned in advance, been charged with
the same and such sentences have been passed on them that they
would fall from their position in the town. I now realize that,
through those means, it was intended to bring about an evil end:
to bring down the respectable citizens who had opposed him; and
this writ was purchased not for any well-intended purpose, but
only out of malice, to be able to get rid of all the most respectable
men. By such false scheming and plotting of their downfall would
the respectable people of the town have been banished from the town.
In relation to which, it had already been decided who would fill
the offices of the mayoralty, aldermanries, shrievalties, and
others of similar importance, in the following year; so that
John Norhampton's adversaries would not hold any offices thereafter.
As a result of which we might well see the destruction of the town
within a short time, because of having so many capable men gone
from the town. Of this I accuse John Norhampton, John More,
Richard Norbury, and William Essex.

Often, just before the election of Sir Nicholas Brembre as mayor,
mayor John Norhampton, John More, and Richard Norbury sent
William Essex and me, Thomas Usk, to Goldsmiths' Hall to speak
with members of the common council in regard to electing a mayor,
and for the same purpose I, Thomas Usk, was to speak to those that
I knew of the common councillors about choosing John Norhampton.
There at Goldsmiths' Hall it was agreed among those who assembled
that certain persons from various crafts other than those who were
nominees for the common council should be
[summoned] on election day
to join the common council, to help
[ensure] the election of
John Norhampton. The lesser people were to be drawn into
this arrangement, so that they should feel committed to
John Norhampton; so that if, in the future, someone else chosen
as mayor tried to take action against him, they might be ready
to support him against any accusation brought against him. If
he had become mayor, I know very well that he would either have
enforced all his ordinances, or else have set the entire town
in an uproar. Of this I accuse John Norhampton, John More,
Richard Norbury, and William Essex.

The evening before the day when the mayor was to be elected,
John More advised all his servants and his men to carry arms
at the Guildhall the following day. For, he let it be known,
he and his associates would keep guard at the entrances that day,
with the intent that no-one should go in except those who would
choose John Norhampton as mayor. Of this I accuse John More.

On the day that Sir Nicholas Brembre was chosen mayor, soon after
dinner John Norhampton went to John More's house, and Richard Norbury
and William Essex also came there. They agreed there that the mayor,
John Norhampton, should send a message to the crafts members of
the common council and to the wardens of the crafts, to tell them
to come to Goldsmiths' Hall the following day, where
the mayor would speak to them,
to consider and arrange how to overturn the election of
Sir Nicholas Brembre. And were it not for fear of the king, I am
certain everyone would have been at each other's throats. Then
he sent Richard Norbury, Robert Ryseby and me, Thomas Usk, to
the Neyt, to the Duke of Lancaster,
to say the following: "Sir, today when we wished to participate in
the election of the mayor in the peace of God and the king, there
came a dreadful crowd of hecklers whom no-one knew; and they,
without any right other than that of force, chose Sir Nicholas Brembre
mayor, contrary to the electoral procedures we have used in the past.
Consequently we request you to obtain for us a writ from the king
to hold a new election." But the duke replied: "No indeed, you
shall have no writ. Sort out the matter amongst yourselves." Of
this I accuse John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury, and
William Essex.

When all the people [summoned]
had gathered at Goldsmiths' Hall, mayor John Norhampton painted as
bad a picture as he could of the election the previous day, and
said: "Sirs, this sets the scene for us to be trampled underfoot,
and that," said he, "I will not tolerate. Let us rather die here
and now than suffer such mischief." These words stirred up
the commons, and they said that they would indeed hold another
election, and not put up with such a wrong, or else all die together.
Then the mayor, John Norhampton, instructed them all to go home,
and quickly come back to the Cheap
in strength with all their [fellow]
craftsmen  I reckon there were about 30 crafts. The intent
was for them to assemble in Cheap and proceed to hold a new election.
In fact, if the aldermen had not come to negotiate and persuaded
John Norhampton to send the people home, they would have held a
new election and were so worked up they would have killed anyone
who tried to stop them. Of this I accuse John Norhampton.

In regard to all the matters described above, though John Norhampton,
who was at that time mayor, John More, Richard Norbury, William Essex,
and occasionally Adam Bame, seeing that the most respectable men
had dissociated from them because of their uncompromising policies
and poor decisions, and had already rejected
[working with] them, nonetheless
attracted support from many crafts and a multitude of the lesser
people who have no understanding of government or how to make
good decisions. And through confederacy,
[illegal] assemblies, and
conspiracy, planned and brought about as indicated above, they
intended to uphold by force their false and wicked notions, under
the pretext of communal benefit exhorting the people to be ready
from day to day to support them in what they were evilly planning.
In this way, as much after he ceased being mayor as before, all
those who were on his side stirred up trouble, held meetings, and
plotted what has been described above  except for Adam Bame
who, as far as I know, since he [i.e.
Northampton] ceased being mayor, has not been involved with
him. Also, John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury, and
William Essex would so greatly slander the respectable men of the
town that the people were, and are, sufficiently emboldened to rebel
against those who govern them, now and in the future, as a result
of lies and agitation, conspiracies, assemblies, and confederacies
made then and continued ever since, as described above. All this
has come about  the confederacies, the stirring up, the debates,
and the great strife that is still dominating the city 
principally through John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury,
and William Essex, and what they have had done. It is on the point
of bringing trouble down on the whole kingdom. The city has been
tottering on the brink, and still is. Which evil intentions I
aided and abetted in whatever ways I could, for which I beg grace
and mercy of my liege-lord the king, and secondly of the mayor
and all the respectable aldermen, and of all the good commons
of the town, as one who will never again offend against the town
in any way. And to tell truth, Adam Bame was not so frequently
nor so heavily involved in these matters as were the others. Of
this I accuse John Norhampton, Richard Norbury, John More, and
William Essex.

Ever since he ceased being mayor, John Norhampton, John More,
Richard Norbury, and William Essex have busied themselves ... in
winning the backing of the populace, and has put his own efforts
into convening assemblies and gatherings of companies,
[to urge them] to stand by
him ... and he instructed me, Thomas Usk, to
[go to] the Bow to meet with
other folk he had gathered, and there he showed a petition that
had been drawn up against him and he obtained assurance from
that group that they would stand by him [only
fragments of the remainder of the text could be read; they suggest
that Northampton's supporters (Usk and two goldsmiths) were making
a further effort to win support from the Duke of Lancaster, and
they close with Usk reiterating his repentance for his part in
the affair and appealing for mercy].

[2. Findings of an inquisition into the actions
of John Northampton]

[N.B. The transcript omits parts of
the text, as indicated by the ellipses.]

At an earlier date before Nicholas Brembre mayor
it was presented that John Norhampton,
recently mayor of the city of London (that is, in 1381 and 1382)
held meetings on various occasions at the tavern of John Willyngham
in the Bow involving one or two men from some twenty craft gilds 
that is, the armourers, girdlers, lorimers, pinners, wiredrawers,
cardmakers, curriers, horners, tilers, smiths, dyers, fullers,
shermen, haberdashers, cordwainers, and whichever of the other
of the lesser gilds supported him  who were chosen by
John Norhampton to be members of the common council. On any
of these occasions the mayor was accompanied there by his advisors
John More mercer, Richard Norbury mercer, William Essex draper,
and also Thomas Usk, a scribe for writing his documents. At
those meetings were debated various matters and proposals for
diminishing and subverting the liberties and customs that have
previously been used in the city. The aim being that, at any
[session of the] common council
at which those thus elected were present, they might unanimously
agree on the matters or proposals previously dealt with in that
way, and thus the common council would present to the public
a common face on such matters as indicated above. Following
this method, John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury,
William Essex, and Thomas Usk introduced whatever proposals suited
them and had them entered in the
[Letter] book of the
Guildhall of London as a matter of record. Because
Sir William Walworth and others held contrary opinions, it
was agreed among John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury,
William Essex, and Thomas Usk that, during the time he was mayor,
John Norhampton should accept onto his council those who suited
him, and those who put themselves in opposition to his will
should be rejected. And that no-one should come to the
common council from a craft that opposed him, except only two
presented by the craftsmen and who were approved by John Norhampton;
but from other crafts that supported him might come as many
as they wished. In this way he arranged to have with him at
every common council so many men from those crafts supporting
him that the party opposing him, or opposing his proposals,
was powerless.

They also present that during the mayoral term of John Norhampton
it was ordained by John Norhampton and the others that all alderman
should be removed [from the office]
on a yearly basis, and others should be elected in their place.
That the common council should comprise men from various crafts.
That no victualler might hold judicial office within the city, and
that victuallers from outside might bring their victuals to the city
and freely sell the same by retail or any other method, without
being subject to the liberties customarily governing victualling.
The intent and plan of John Norhampton being that those articles
and all ordinances made by them, whether good or bad, should in
the future, through the power of the people that they had harnessed,
be observed and maintained against any mayor holding office in
future who might wish to act counter to them. Afterwards, once
the reputable men
forsook such wicked councils, as they had no option but to do,
John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury, William Essex, and
Thomas Usk drew to them the common people of whatever crafts were
on their side, to stand with them in upholding, in life and in death,
the wicked platform indicated above; at all such councils there
were present, alongside John, John More, Richard Norbury,
William Essex, Thomas Usk, and sometimes Adam Bamme. Their
intent and arrangements were aimed at having the entire city
under their rule etc., even if this necessitated getting rid of
all the reputable men who had the power to speak out against them.

Also, because the long-standing officers  that is, the recorder,
the chamberlain of the Guildhall, the common clerk, and other
officers  were unwilling to endorse the ideas of John Norhampton,
John More, Richard Norbury, William Essex, and Thomas Usk, but
[instead] opposed them, around
Easter 1382 John Norhampton,
John More, Richard Norbury, William Essex, and Thomas Usk, at
the Guildhall and elsewhere, from day to day during
John Norhampton's mayoralty, conspired to remove those officers
over the course of time and to replace them with such men as
were willing to support their ideas. They declared in public
that all who held themselves in opposition to their intentions
were enemies of all good intentions; this was constantly used
to get the poorer of the common people worked up against the
reputable men and the city officers. And John Norhampton said to
the people that the great men of the city wished to have the people
in subjection, oppressed, and at the lowest level they could,
forever. By him persisting in saying these things, it promoted
discord and dissension between the reputable men and the
middling people, to the detriment of the status quo.

Also, they present that on 11 October
1382, prior to the second election
of John Norhampton to the mayoralty, because Sir John Philpot
was opposing the wicked acts of John Norhampton, John More falsely
arranged for a petition to be drawn up and submitted by the
common council to the mayor and read out on election day. It
sought from John Philpot a certain sum of money that he had borrowed
from various persons when he had been mayor; it was then proposed
that John Philpot be prohibited from holding any position or office
within the city from that time forth.

Also, they present that on that same date certain provisions were
made in secret by John Norhampton and others, at the houses of
John Norhampton and John More, to do everything they could to
have the commons of the city agree to the election of John Norhampton
and no-one else as mayor, with the intent that all ordinances
previously made by John Norhampton and others might be confirmed
by the king in his next parliament.

Also, they present that at that parliament a writ from the king
was sought by Richard Norbury, William Essex, John More, and
Thomas Carleton, giving the mayor authority to punish all usurers
within the city, whether at the suit of some
[private] person wishing to
lay a complaint or through an indictment. It was afterwards,
that same year, in London agreed between the mayor and the others
mentioned that by means of this writ they might have the pretext
to take action against any person who happened to be found guilty
in a public suit. And thus that same year, through scheming and
plotting in advance in the parish of St. Mary-le-Bow, John Norhampton
would have implemented his plan through attacks on many of the
most reputable citizens of good standing, so that thereafter they
might be unable to hold any position or office within the city.
In this way they intended to put into action all their wicked
arrangements and plans which had previously been put in place by
John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury, William Essex, and
Thomas Usk, concerning the offices of mayor, aldermen, sheriffs
and other officers in the years following, so that none of
John Norhampton's adversaries could hold any office.

Also, they present that at John More's contrivance Walter Sibyle,
John Horn, and Adam Karlill were falsely indicted in 1382 by several
inquisitions [held] before
the sheriffs of London at that time, Adam Bamme and John Sely,
on various charges of insurrection and other felonies
[committed] at London. Of
which [the findings of] the
two best inquisitions were returned to the king, and not the
others  the remainder of the inquisitions being kept back,
at John More's contrivance, in the hands of the sheriffs.

Also, they present that, prior to 13 October 1383, the date
when Nicholas Brembre was elected mayor of the city, by the
decision of John Norhampton then mayor, John More, Richard Norbury
etc. prearranged between them through their deceitful connivance
and conspiracy, William Essex and Thomas Usk frequently went to
the Goldsmiths' Hall to speak with members of the common council
about electing a mayor for the year coming; to which end the
names of the councillors were given to Thomas Usk by John Norhampton,
with the intention that Thomas communicate to the commons
his understanding of the said matter. There an agreement was
reached that certain persons of various crafts, whose names had
not previously been put forward for the common council, would be
required [to come] among
the common council on election day to help elect John Norhampton
as mayor. And that the middling people were to be
placed on the council to provide
similar support; with the intent that they stand solidly behind
John Norhampton in all actions, and that if in future any other
mayor elected in the city was an opponent of John Norhampton and
wished to speak out against John concerning what has been
mentioned above or any other wicked deeds, John Norhampton might
rely on the middling people he had drawn to himself appearing
to support him against all things of which he was accused.

Also, they present that on the evening before the day of Nicholas'
election as mayor, John More in his house in St. Mary-le-Bow parish
forewarned all his servants to be armed the following day at
the Guildhall, and he told them that he and his colleague, the
other sheriff, wished to stand
guard that day at the entrance to the Guildhall, so that no-one
should enter unless he was someone willing to elect John Norhampton
in the mayoralty.

Also, they present that on the day when Nicholas was elected,
John Norhampton, Richard Norbury, William Essex, and Thomas Usk
came to John More's house in the Bow immediately after the
[main] meal
[of the day]. There it was
agreed that John Norhampton should send
[instructions] to those
persons who, at the time of Nicholas' election, were in
the common council of the crafts and to the wardens of the
crafts, to come to Goldsmiths' Hall the following day, where
John Norhampton would talk with them and arrange how the election
of Nicholas Brembre might be annulled. And this being done, it
was only fear of the king intervening in the city that prevented
John Norhampton and the others instigating a public outcry and
uprising, at a time when John Norhampton was mayor and
keeper of the peace.

Afterwards, John Norhampton sent Richard Norbury ... to the Neyt
to inform the Duke of Lancaster that on election day they had
expected to proceed with the mayoral election in the peace of God
and the king, but there intervened a dreadful crowd of unknown
persons making a great clamour; and there, without any precedent
in city custom concerning the mayoral election, they used force
to elect Nicholas. They begged the duke to let them have a
king's writ to proceed with holding a new election. In response
to which the duke told them that they could have no writ on
the matter, but should sort out the matter amongst themselves.

Also, they present that on the day following that on which
Nicholas Brembre was elected mayor, at the Goldsmiths' Hall,
when the populace had gathered there at his wishes, John Norhampton
painted as bad a picture as he could of Nicholas' election and
said to them that it was certain that an effort would be made
to crush them if that election were allowed to stand, which he
himself was not willing to permit; rather, he said, let us be
agreed all to die together at one time than to endure such
abuse.... The commons were stirred up and said that they wished
to proceed to another election. So John Norhampton ordered them
all to hurry home and return with all the men of their crafts to
the Cheap, to hold a new election. If many of the aldermen had
not intervened and negotiated with John Norhampton for a
peaceful resolution, the commons would have fulfilled their wish
to proceed with a new election, and they were so stirred up and
hot under the collar as to threaten to kill anyone  including
Nicholas and the aldermen, among others  who wanted to
prevent them.

Also, they present that concerning all these matters described
above during John Norhampton's mayoralty, that is during the years
1382 to 1383, John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury,
William Essex, and Thomas Usk, and on occasion Adam Bamme,
subjecting to their bad government and poor decisions the good
and reputable people of the city, who dissociated from them because
of the abuse they had suffered in the past,
[instead] drew to themselves
many men of various crafts and many of the middling people who
were completely ignorant of good government. Through their
premeditated conspiracy and by means of popular assemblies they
intended to maintain by force their perverse and wicked notions
under the pretext of communal benefit, and were always exhorting
the people to be ready to support them. In this way, both after
John Norhampton had ceased to be mayor (that is, in 1383) and
before, John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury, William Essex,
and Thomas Usk feloniously conspired and so greatly slandered
the good people of the city that the populace was, and still is,
sufficiently emboldened to rebel against those who govern them ... And
because of them ... great dissension and tumult have arisen among
the people, and are still holding sway up to the present, to
the point where they threaten to disrupt the whole kingdom of England.

After John Norhampton was no longer mayor, that is immediately after
28 October 1383 and the year that followed, and Nicholas had assumed
the mayoralty, John Norhampton, John More, Richard Norbury,
William Essex, and Thomas Usk focused their efforts on winning
the populace to John Norhampton's side and urging them to stand
by them in their wicked acts against Nicholas Brembre. In this
regard, on 18 January 1384 John Norhampton sent Thomas Usk to
the Bow to meet with men he had gathered there, and there he
showed them a certain petition drawn up against him and entreated
them all to stand by him ... that they should not be exposed to
any injury or oppression that any Londoner sought to inflict on
them.

Also, they say that after John Norhampton was arrested in London
by Nicholas Brembre, that is on 7 February 1384, Robert Franceys
goldsmith, John Lincolle goldsmith, and Thomas Usk at their own
deceitful initiative followed up with the Duke of Lancaster,
to inform the duke that John Norhampton was the best mayor that
had ever been and to criticize Nicholas Brembre and his administration.

Also, they present that on 11 February 1384 John More mercer,
Richard Norbury mercer, Robert Franceys goldsmith, and others
rose up against mayor Nicholas ... and made illegal assemblies
both in the parish of St. Mary-le-Bow and elsewhere in various parts
of the city and suburbs, with the result that the doors and windows
of many shops in West Cheap, Budge Row, Fleet Street and elsewhere
that were previously open quickly closed as soon as they had word
of the uprising, and the people gathered together, conspiring
to kill mayor Nicholas. Which mayor, hearing of this, gathered
around him many of the aldermen and other sensible men and went
in armed force to West Cheap to uphold
the king's peace.

Also, it was similarly presented by a certain inquisition that
John Norhampton citizen and draper, William Essex draper,
Richard Norbury mercer, Robert Ryseby draper, Thomas Usk scrivener,
John Maudeleyn tailor, Guy Paulyn draper, John Bere haberdasher,
John Muntham joiner, and Thomas Kyngesbrigge cordwainer are
the leading conspirators behind such illegal assemblies. And
that they, out of malice, on 2 November 1383 in the parish of
St. Mary-le-Bow in the ward of Cordwainer Street, after the
aforementioned mayor had assumed all the powers of the mayoralty
of the city by taking his oath, and after that from day to day,
both there and at St. Paul's church, the Minorites' friary,
and the Augustinian friary ... conspired against the mayor
and the aldermen and ... as a result of which a certain part
of the populace showed itself through various indications,
in looks and in words, to be rebellious and disobedient towards
the mayor etc.

They also say that this mayor, on 22 January 1384, before the
king's council at Westminster and in the presence of various aldermen,
spoke as politely as he could to John Norhampton concerning his
misdeeds and other of his malicious acts. Although John Norhampton
was unwilling to acknowledge any such misdeeds, he did however
in front of the council submit himself entirely to accept whatever
judgement the mayor and aldermen reached. Upon which the council
ordered John Norhampton to go with the mayor and aldermen back
to the city, in their custody, and there to accept and comply
with their decision ... if he wished to avoid serious punishment.
Which, when there, John Norhampton having agreed to do ...
immediately, by the mayor's grace and out of respect for the
king's council, he was set at liberty upon reputable men being
found as guarantors of
John Norhampton's peaceable behaviour and abstention from making
any assembly without the mayor's permission ... All of which
notwithstanding, over the course of two days preceding Sunday,
7 February 1384, John Norhampton sent his neighbours to summon
various men, numbering about 500 in total, who came to John Norhampton
at St. Mary-le-Bow church on that Sunday in response to the call.
John Norhampton led them through the centre of West Cheap and
through the middle of St. Paul's
church[yard], and thus beyond
Ludgate as far as the church of the Carmelite friars in
the suburbs. For which reason the mayor arrested him and he
remained under arrest, until by the authority of a royal writ
he was sent to Corfe Castle.

[3. Northampton's final resort to
armed resistance, as reported by two inquisition juries]

a) Also, they say under oath that
John Norhampton and his aforementioned accomplices
[Essex and Usk], together with
John More and Richard Norbury, whom he permitted to aid and abet
him, devised a crafty way to engineer an uprising by the people
of the city against the mayor, in a felonious and treasonable effort
to overthrow the city, notwithstanding the earlier proclamation of
the king's restraining order. To further the wicked plans he had
already worked out, during the two days prior to 7 February 1384,
without having sought licence from the mayor, they arranged for
various messengers to summon men of their and other crafts, under
penalty of a monetary fine, that is 6s.8d (even though John Norhampton
was not at that time an officer of the king in the city), to gather
on the Sunday after midday in the churchyard of St. Mary-le-Bow,
London. On which day, shortly after midday in response to
the summons, there assembled
Geoffrey Waldern, William Hoghton,
John Whytyngton, Thomas Noket, Richard Norbury, John Carbonell,
John Chedder, and others to the number of about five hundred men,
whom John Carpenter led  as if their captain  through
West Cheap. The mayor being advised of this was astonished and as
fast as may be hurried after them, concerned about the possibility
of them causing an affray or a disturbance of the peace. Seeing
them as they proceeded on their perambulation, he twice sent ahead
to them, through his sergeant John Bothisham, to tell them to wait
for him. But John Norhampton and his followers had no inclination
to do so at that point, nor until the mayor caught up with them near
the bridge over the Fleet. There John Norhampton, openly revealing
the animosity towards the mayor he felt in his heart, acted in
a rebellious manner to the mayor, organizing his followers by
dividing them into two ranks lined up along opposite sides of
the street, obliging the mayor with the men who had come with him
to make his way down the middle of them, showing no honour or
respect for the mayor as they ought to have done because of
their oaths [as freemen].

Also, they say under oath that after Nicholas the mayor reached
John Norhampton and his followers at the Fleet Bridge and asked
him, as well as ordered him in the king's name, to come with him,
they refused to heed his warning at first, until at the last
John Norhampton ordered his companions to follow him, not
the mayor, and they left the latter standing there. Nor was
John Norhampton himself willing to go with the mayor, but in
defiance of the mayor he and his followers stuck together in
their rebellion and he went his own way.

Also, they say under oath that the same Sunday, after the rumour
had spread in the city that John Norhampton had gathered a crowd
in Fleet Street to put up resistance to the mayor, people of
the city who sided with the mayor hurried there to help him.
The mayor seeing this and realizing how stirred up the populace
was and particularly how rebellious John Norhampton was, in an
attempt to calm the crowds, asked and ordered those who sided
with John Norhampton to move off with him from the church of
the Carmelite friars; this they refused to do, declaring openly
to each other that "we didn't come here with him, so we won't
leave here with him". Because of John Norhampton's rebelliousness,
and in order to protect his life and those of others who were
with him, the mayor arrested John Norhampton and took him into
custody.

Also, they say under oath that the same Sunday, after John Norhampton
was arrested by the mayor in Fleet Street, as mentioned above,
a certain Robert Cumberton the
brother of John Norhampton and John Blyton a servant of John Norhampton,
brandishing their glistening knives and daggers before the mayor,
attempted a rescue on John Norhampton near the hostelry there call
Topfeld's Inn, feloniously disturbing the king's peace. As a result
of which, the mayor subsequently arrested Robert Cumberton and
John Blyton.

Also, they say under oath that the same Sunday, shortly after
John Norhampton had been placed under arrest, he arrived with
the mayor at the street called Cordwainer Street. Seeing his
supporters gathered around his house there and hoping that he
might be rescued, he arrogantly threatened the mayor with these
words, as if rejecting the fact that he was in custody, saying
"You have brought me here by force, now shall I go into my house?"
To which the mayor replied, "No, you shall come with me." John Norhampton
responded, "If you take me any further, I won't be held responsible
for any violence that comes of it. Whatever happens, let it be on
your head." This was said by John Norhampton because of his intention,
with malice aforethought, to benefit from the trouble he had stirred
up in his effort to overthrow the city  and indeed the whole
kingdom of England.

Also, they say under oath that following John Norhampton's confinement
in the house of the mayor, John Remes,
Thomas Lincolle, Richard Brendewode,
Robert Ryseby, Thomas Depham, and Simon Stratton, along with
Robert Chamberleyn a servant of John Norhampton and Robert
a former servant of William Essex, came with a huge crowd of
people which they had raised and led to the mayor's house.
They did the best they could to use force to break down the doors
of that house (which had the status of the king's prison) and
feloniously and treasonably to remove John Norhampton from
the mayor's custody.

Also, they say under oath that Robert Cumberton, John More,
John Constantyn, Robert Ryseby, Thomas Usk, William Tyngewyk,
and other accomplices and supporters of John Norhampton, on
the first count and also on the second one indicated above, with
the agreement, arrangement, and instigation of John Norhampton,
who was at that time in custody in the mayor's house, as has been
said, treacherously, feloniously and treasonably plotted and raised
a conspiracy involving the people of the city. That is, in
the churchyard of St. Mary's and elsewhere in the city from that
Sunday continuously until the Thursday following, they tried to
raise the people, carry out a rescue of John Norhampton, and kill
the mayor and other reputable men of the city. As a result of
which conspiracy and plot, on the morning of that Thursday,
Robert Cumberton, John More, John Constantyn, Robert Ryseby,
Thomas Usk, and William Tyngewyk, as the principal movers, rose
up and incited the people to do the same. Many shops in various
streets of the city  that is, in West Cheap, Budge Row,
and elsewhere  that were previously open were closed up,
and the people who sided with John Norhampton found themselves
weapons and rose up, with the result that the city would have
been given over to extensive carnage and pillage, to the point
of its overthrow, had not the mayor, by the grace of God, quickly
brought an opposing armed force to the aid and relief of
the populace, stood his ground against the rioters, and forced
an end to their activities, pacifying them by
encircling their forces.

b) It was presented that
John Norhampton draper, Thomas Carleton embroiderer, William Essex,
Thomas Usk, and Richard Norbury were the chief conspirators. They
also say that John More, Robert Cumberton the brother of John Norhampton,
John Constantyn cordwainer, John Doncastre coppersmith, John Muntham
joiner ... were their supporters ....
[The
document proceeds to describe the events leading up to and
of 7 February, with the progress of Northampton's perambulation]
beyond Ludgate as far as Fleet Bridge. Without prior warning of
this assembly, the mayor was advised of it while at a meal at
the house of Sir Richard Waldegrave in Wood Street,
St. Michael of Hog Lane parish,
with Sir William Walworth, Sir John Philpot, Robert Warbulton,
John Shadworth, Adam Bamme,
Henry Bamme, and others. Taking with him John Philpot,
Henry Vannere, and
William Cheyne, along with
Simon Wynchecombe one of the city sheriffs ... the mayor hurried
to West Cheap, where he caught sight of John Norhampton and
his followers heading for the church of St. Michael
at Corn[market]. Then the mayor
sent John Botkysham, one of his sergeants, to John Norhampton
to forbid him, on behalf of the mayor and in the king's name, going
any further before the mayor could catch up to him. John Botkysham
reached them as they were about to go into St. Paul's churchyard
and communicated to them the prohibition as instructed. That
notwithstanding, they refused to wait, some of them declaring
"Keep marching, keep marching". Seeing this, John Botkysham returned
to the mayor and informed him of the situation. The mayor then
ordered the same sergeant to go back to them again, to get them
to wait for the mayor and his associates. The sergeant went and,
reaching them in St. Paul's churchyard, announced his message to
them. But John Norhampton and his lieutenants refused to pay heed,
so the sergeant went back to the mayor and told him of it. A third
time that sergeant was instructed by the mayor to go to them to say
that, in the name of the mayor and the king, they should halt until
the mayor and his associates reached them, or otherwise risk
the penalty.

The sergeant ran off a third time and came to John Norhampton at
Fleet Bridge, where he communicated his message. At that,
John Norhampton and the others, looking back the way they had
come and seeing the mayor close at hand and hurrying towards them,
called a halt. John Norhampton lined up his followers on either
side of the street. When the mayor, with a handful of others,
had come up to them they passed through the middle of them, heading
towards the Carmelite friary. Then, looking back the way they had
come, they saw John and the people with him still standing together
assembled in the positions they had held when they passed through
them, rather than following the mayor; seeing this, the mayor and
all the others [with him] were
astonished by it. In this fashion John Norhampton demonstrated
his rebelliousness and opposition towards his mayor. Upon which,
the mayor then three or four times by words and signals requested
and ordered them to come and go with them; but none of them budged
until first John Norhampton slowly made a move, and then the
others came with him, and they followed the mayor at a distance
and defiantly as far as and into the church of the Carmelites ...
At which point, in the Carmelite church, the mayor ordered that
everyone who belonged to the liberty of the city should withdraw
with him, in order to preserve the king's peace. But some declared
they would not go off with him. When the mayor left the church,
heading in the direction of Fleet Bridge, it was with John Norhampton
in his custody ... for the purpose of calming down the folk on
either side, for many had gathered together there to take sides
in the uprising against the mayor; but, God be thanked, the mayor
and alderman then had the more powerful following. With much
difficulty, they placed a guard around John Norhampton and his
brother Robert and, careful to remain alert, made their way towards
the mayor's house.

When they arrived at the end of Cordwainer Street, next to
William Kyng's shop and close to the entrance to John Norhampton's
house, John made a request to the mayor, saying by way of a threat,
"Unless you allow me to go home to my house, I will not be held
responsible for any violence that occurs hereafter." This he said
in an arrogant and contemptuous manner. Upon which the mayor
led John Norhampton to the mayor's house, to make his custody
more secure and certain.

And they say that disturbances, rumours, and clashes were instigated
and fomented on a daily basis in the city and suburbs, particularly
on Thursday, 11 February, when huge gatherings took place and
the windows, doors, and shops in West Cheap, Budge Row and elsewhere
were closed in anticipation of an uprising ... And certain
troublemakers and disturbers of the king's peace  that is,
John More, Robert Cumberton, and John Constantyn  caused an
uprising ...

[4. The mayoral election of 1384]

It being the case that each 12 October the
senior and more important citizens
of London were accustomed to proceed with the election of a new mayor,
Sir Nicholas Brembre, who had been mayor over the past year,
wanted to take precautions against any disputes or disturbances
being stirred up during this election. Acting secretly, he concealed
armed men in rooms of the Guildhall, with the intent that, should
any disagreement or dispute occur at this election, they would
at once appear to subdue the rebels and troublemakers; so that
fear of being punished with imprisonment, at the least, would
discourage them from their disruptive behaviour and heckling, and
they would immediately revert to a
harmonious and communal frame of mind. What more need be
said? [When] the important
townsmen assembled at the Guildhall to elect a new mayor, one part
of the citizenry raised loud cries of "Twyford! Twyford!", disposed
to have him as their mayor, while another part had other loyalties
and shouted even more loudly "Brembre! Brembre!" This division of
opinion having thus arisen, Sir Nicholas Brembre gave a signal and
at once the armed men emerged to confront the assembly and
quell those acting seditiously. When
they saw this, those who were shouting "Twyford!" took to flight.
Once order had been restored, those of the important citizens who
remained were united in acclaiming Sir Nicholas Brembre to
the mayoralty for another term. This being achieved, Brembre with
his armed troops made their way along the street called Cheap, on
the lookout for any disturbers of the peace who might have congregated
there, and afterwards paraded through other streets for the same
purpose, with the intent that if he found any such troublemakers
he would make an example of them to others, by chaining them up in
Newgate for a while. In this fashion
was the election carried out. Although there were those who challenged
its validity, insofar as they dared, nonetheless
[Brembre] remained mayor throughout
the rest of the year, with the special approval of the king.

[5. Northampton squarely blamed by his enemies
for the disturbances, 1385]

Memorandum that at a congregation of the mayor, alderman and several
good men chosen from the wisest and most
discreet men of the wards
summoned and assembled in the Chamber of the Guildhall on 22 March 1385
there were present Sir Nicholas Brembre mayor, William Cheyne recorder,
John Hadle, John Boseham, Robert Warbulton,
Henry Vannere, John Hende, Adam de Seint Ive, William More, Nicholas Exston,
John Fressh, John Rote, Roger Elys, John Fraunceis, Thomas Welford,
William Staundon and Simon Wynchecombe,
aldermen, and the following persons from the wards:
[70 men are named, per ward].

Whereas there had long been dissension and division in the city between
divers men of the same, whereby great evil and peril might arise, to
the destruction and loss both of the city and of the whole realm,
unless remedy were found by the aid of God, and the said mayor and
aldermen and other wise men desiring peace and tranquillity, accord,
unity and quiet among the people, and wishing to be informed and
certified, as far as possible, as to the cause and root of the said
dissension and division and how they might be ousted, and unity and
accord be made and kept among the people, demand was made of every
person, alderman and commoner, by the faith which he owed to God and
our lord the king and the oath which he had made to the city,
to declare and say openly on his conscience and as he would answer
before God, sparing none, what was the cause and root of such
dissension and division, whereupon all said severally that it was
the life of John Norhampton, for so long as he remained alive all
those that were of his covin hoped
that he would return to the city and by this hope they comforted others,
whereby dissension arose and would
always continue so long as he lived. And further, each of them said
on his conscience that the thing which would most easily engender
unity and accord, and would oust all dissensions and divisions and,
in their opinion, would bring the matter to a good end, would be
to require and pray our said lord the king in his high and royal majesty
that execution of the judgement of law given on the said John Norhampton
in the Tower of London should be done, for so long as he lived the
said people of his covin and lovers of his opinions would hope for
his return to the city as aforesaid, which would be to the utter
confusion and destruction of the city, which God forbid. And upon
this, with one accord, it was agreed that it would be well for
the mayor to take with him certain aldermen and commoners, such as
seemed to him good, and to approach our lord the king, petitioning
him in the manner and form aforesaid.

And also because the mayor and commoners were advised that for
safeguarding of the city and suburbs against any peril that might
arise, it would be necessary that a good ditch and a pale above
it should be made around all the suburbs of the city for its defence
in case need should arise, which God forbid, and because it would
take too long to settle the question as to how and in what manner
it should be done, since many matters and arguments would be raised
among so many men and peradventure no conclusion would be made, it
was agreed by everyone that the mayor and aldermen on the morrow
should choose from among themselves twelve aldermen and
twelve commoners of the most sufficient and discreet men in
the city to ordain and treat by what means and how the said matter
should be brought into effect, and in what manner the costs which
would be needed might be levied, and to do all other things which
appertained to the said matter.

[6. Accusations against Thomas Austin, of
complicity in Northampton's cause]

First, the essence of the accusation or appeal
[...]

To his worship the mayor of London: please be informed that
Thomas Austyn is, and has been, one of the principal supporters
of the treason against our liege lord the king; that is, in
aiding and abetting John Norhampton and those holding the same
views regarding the overthrow of the city of London, and regarding
making a false complaint to the Duke of Lancaster that he
[i.e. Northampton] was unjustly
convicted before the king.

One instance of this is that Thomas Austyn was always ready
to contribute to John Norhampton's cause or, personally and with
his men, to stand alongside John Norhampton and his supporters
against the king, insofar as he was able and dared.

Another instance is that, during Sir Nicholas Brembre's mayoralty,
on every occasion that Thomas Austyn was given advance warning by
the mayor to [join in the] ride
to meet the king, or to participate in maintaining the peace, then
Thomas Austyn was scornful and resisted the summonses, and either
kept out of the way or had to go out of town on an errand.

Another instance is that two days before the time of
Sir Nicholas Brembre's second election, Thomas distributed his
principal goods by night to
various places, for what purpose we never knew.

Another instance is that Thomas instructed all his men that none
should absent themselves from his house on the following morning,
at which time they would see men heading toward the Guildhall, but
none returning. In the privacy of his own property, Thomas Austin
armed himself from head to foot, except for his helmet, and armed
the 15 or 16 men who were at hand; in anticipation that if
Sir Nicholas Brembre, then mayor, took possession of the Guildhall,
they (together with other companies that they expected to be there
in defiance of the king's peace) would attack him, planning to have
completely destroyed those who were in the right. In addition,
his brother Roger Austyn went to and fro between
[Thomas' group and the others],
to keep them informed about what was to be attempted at the election
of Brembre. Upon which Thomas Austin sent [a
message] to Wigmours, where
an illegal common council was held that night by the supporters of
John Norhampton, that they should be ready to pursue their aims.
The following morning, at the time of the election of Brembre as mayor,
he went out into Cheapside and then, seeing the strength
[of the opposing forces],
Thomas Austyn threw off his armour and declared "All we have been
trying to achieve is lost!" He quietly instructed his men to return
to his shop and open it, as if nothing had happened; and so they did.

Also, another instance is that on the same day his servant,
Hochon of Liverpool, was keeping watch from his room when along
came Hugh Fastolf and urinated
against the wall of St. Laurence's
church. Hochon of Liverpool said, "There's one of those thieves,"
and continued, "Watch how I nail him to the wall with an arrow."
Then he pulled back on his bowstring with the intent of killing him
and I, John Hore, said, "Leave it out,
you'll do for us all." And so it was stopped.

Another instance is that Thomas Austyn saw that other dishonest men
were punished for their lies and was afraid that his deceit would
be revealed. So soon after he sent to his man overseas, telling
him not to mark his wares with his own
[merchant's] mark, so that
it might be arrested upon arrival in England; he abandoned his
true mark and took this mark
[illustration]. This was done
for fear that his dishonesty might be revealed.

Another instance is that Thomas Austyn has said on several
occasions, with forethought, that things would never be well
in England while this king were king.

Another instance is that on several occasions, in his presence,
his wife has said that certainly the king was never the
[Black] Prince's son; she also
said that his mother was never any more than a whore, through and
through. Thomas never once showed any inclination to tell her to
hold her tongue, but indulged her malice.

And another instance is that when Thomas Austyn realized that
the Duke could not get his way with our liege lord, he said,
"There is nothing for it now, but that someone arranges for two
men to run Brembre through and skedaddle."

Also, another instance is that when the Duke was staying at Hertford
while there was a quarrel between him and our liege lord, he
[i.e. Austin] sent me, John Banham,
to Hertford as quick as I could, so that I could find out when
he intended to come to London and whether he would come in strength
or not. The man from whom I, John Banham, should have learned this
was not there, but was out delivering a message from the Duke.

Also, another instance is that on the same day as the election
Thomas Austyn told me, John Banham, to go into Cheapside and spy
if I could see any companies heading for the Guildhall  that
is, goldsmiths, tailors, cordwainers  and come home and tell him.

Another instance is that on various occasions Thomas Austyn has
said that things would never be right until the lying whores who
controlled our liege lord the king &150; namely, Brembre 
were hung.

Another instance is that four days before the same election took
place, Thomas Austyn [said] to
a Kidderminster man: "Right now, the mayor imagines he won't face
much opposition on that day. Well, he'll have more than a thousand
against him, so let him enjoy himself while he can."

Another instance is that on several occasions he said he didn't care
who was king, so long as he were left in peace.

Another instance is that while Norhampton's brother was in prison,
all that he could find out came by word of mouth through me, John Banham.
And I, John Banham, stand by [these
accusations, affirming] that they are honest and truthful,
without deceit or evil motive.

As regards the essence of any of these indictments, we do not have nor
have we sought any other indictment regarding persons named in the
king's writ, nor anyone else, other than on the articles and accusations
in the document specified above; from which inquisition, recently
held before Nicholas Exton mayor of the city of London, William More
and William Staundon then sheriffs, and John Charneye the city coroner,
we attach for you the tenor of the indictment, as follows:

Inquisition taken at the Guildhall of London on 16 September 1387,
before Nicholas Exton mayor of the city of London, William More
and William Staundon sheriffs, and John Charneye coroner of that
city, by the oath of reputable and law-abiding men of the city,
to enquire into articles and accusations contained and specified
in the aforesaid document. The inquisition jurors present under
their oath, saying that everything
contained in the document is true, except the article stating
that "he has stolen a thousand pounds from our liege lord the king."
And that Thomas Austyn is guilty of all the other articles and
accusations contained and specified in the document, except that
in which it claims that Thomas Austyn stole a thousand pounds from
the king. Those jurors say that they know nothing about that, but
that Thomas at various times concealed [his
obligation to pay] the king's customs and withheld them,
that is the subsidies on cloth, linen, canvas and other of
his merchandize imported into the city of London, to the value
of one hundred and twenty-five pounds. The jurors say that all
other offences contained in the document were committed mostly
prior to the election of Sir Nicholas Brembre as mayor of the city
of London  that is, before 13 October 1384  and from
there up to about 1 May following; they cannot discover among
themselves that anything happened in these regards afterwards.
But, the jurors say, it is their understanding that Thomas Austyn
has continued up to the present to hold in his heart these evil
intentions towards the city government.

We, William Venour and Hugh Fastolf,
sheriffs of London, have no other indictments, appeals or accusations
such as are mentioned in the writ, that were in any way received or tried
during the time that we have been sheriffs of the city.

Further to this, I Nicholas Exton, mayor, am advising you that
a certain extremely serious accusation was made before me and
the former sheriffs, William More and William Staundon, against
Roger Austyn in regard to the person of the king. Into which we
have not dared enquire without special orders from the king; nor
are we prepared to report on it in writing or orally, except in
private. The king is fully informed on this matter.

[7. Burning of the documentary evidence of
reforms, 1387]

Be it remembered, that on the Saturday next after the Feast of
St. Gregory [12 March], in
the 10th year etc., by precept of
Nicholas Extone, the then Mayor,
a Common Council of the City of London was summoned, as well of
those chosen for the Common Council by each Ward of the said city,
as of other the more reputable and more substantial men of the same;
who assembled in such great numbers, that the Upper Chamber would
not hold them; wherefore, they removed to the Guildhall below, and
the Mayor, Aldermen, and Sheriffs, being seated there in the place
for the Husting assigned, because that by reason of certain new oaths
of the officers of the said city, and certain new ordinances, repugnant
to the old and approved customs of the same, which were written down
in a certain quire, or book, called "Jubile", great
controversies, dissensions, and disputes were often caused among
the citizens; and that therefore it had oftentimes been asked
in divers Common Councils of the said city that the said quire,
or book, should be burnt;  it was now, by assent of the said
Mayor and Aldermen, and the whole of the Common Council, and of
the other reputable men aforesaid, agreed and adjudged, that the
said quire, or book, should be burnt on that same day in the place
without the Guildhall.

[8. Attempt to prevent a resurgence of
the divisions, 1391]

Whereas many dissensions, quarrels, and false reports have prevailed
in the city of London, as between trade and trade, person and person,
because of divers controversies lately moved between Nicholas Brembre,
Knight, and John Norhampton, of late Mayors of the same city, who
were men of great power and estate, and had many friendships and
friends within the same; to the great peril of the same city, and,
maybe, of all the realm; to the displeasure also of God, and of
every good man: and by reason thereof, if some remedy, with
the Almighty aid, be not applied thereunto, destruction and
annihilation to the said city may readily ensue, and peril and
damage to all the realm,  the which may God avert; 
therefore, by assent of Adam Bamme, the Mayor, and the Aldermen
of the said city, considering the mischief and great damage that
from this cause has ensued, and desiring to maintain the peace of
our Lord the King, and of all the realm; for the common profit,
they have ordained and established, that no man, great or small,
or whatsoever estate or condition he be, shall speak from henceforth,
or agitate upon any of the opinions, as to either of them,
the said Nicholas and John, or shall by sign, or in any other manner,
shew that such person is of the one opinion or the other. But let
the folks of the same city be of one accord in good love, without
speaking, any person to another, on the said matter, in manner of
reproof or of hatred; on pain, if any one shall speak or do against
any of the points aforesaid, of imprisonment in Neugate for a year
and a day, without redemption; and of being subject to other penalty
and ordinance in the Guildhall for the like cause made and ordained.

The political unrest in London during the 1370s and '80s has been
characterized in various ways: as a struggle between poor and rich;
as a class conflict of artisans and merchants; and as factionalism
between different mercantile interests, whether victuallers versus
non-victuallers or simply those in power against those wanting power.
There is some measure of truth in all of these interpretations.
The complexity of the situation and of the
motivations of the people involved
does not admit of a simple explanation. Party politics, in terms
of a contest for power between relatively well-defined groups with
variant and sometimes conflicting interests, appears to have been
more developed in London than in most English towns, simply because
socio-economic structure in London was more complex and more
differentiated. Furthermore, London was inevitably caught up
to some degree to the political rivalries and conflicts occurring
at the national level, and these too complicate the local situation.

At the same time, we should not ignore the importance, in the timing
of such political conflicts, of "the man of the moment": that is,
the emergence of a determined individual willing and able 
regardless of whether for ideological or selfish reasons  to
lead a movement seeking political change. John Northampton was
"essentially leader of that party in London which wished to break
down the monopoly of power possessed by the merchant capitalists
both of the victualling and the non-victualling misteries"
[Bird, op.cit., 81] although
by making the victuallers and especially the fishmongers his particular
targets, he was initially able to win support from non-victualling crafts,
notably his own craft, the drapers, the mercers, and also the goldsmiths,
who were jealous of the power of other gilds.

The setting and the principal characters

This was by no means the first such division to engender
constitutional reform and political conflict in London. At the
earlier end of the fourteenth century
the less prominent gilds,both of crafts and victuallers, were asserting
themselves more strongly, their members taking up citizenship in greater
numbers, and so creating an enfranchised power-base in search of
constitutional changes that would increase the representation of
their interests in city government  changes that included making
the gilds, rather than the aldermannic wards, the basic unit of
government. In resisting this development, the patriciate laid
complaints of conspiracies, illegal meetings, heckling and other
methods to unduly influence elections, and disturbances of the peace;
but the gilds' real tactic seems simply to have been to pack
communal assemblies with their members and influence matters through
voting power. At this period the ruling class was itself weakened
by factionalism, and some of the factions were prepared to placate
popular feeling with cautious reforms.

This only whetted the appetite, however, and in 1311, with the local
power-struggle going on against the backdrop of a national contest
(distracting the monarchy, while also making the parties inclined
to curry favour with the Londoners), a set of constitutional reforms
were put in place. Among other things, they made all important
officers subject to popular election, and on an annual basis; and
they enforced greater fiscal accountability, through comptrollers
and auditors. Yet the craft gilds' attempt to dominate city government
made other elements of the community nervous, furnishing the support
to allow the aldermannic elite to reassert itself and restore
the previous constitution. This set the scene for a contest between
the reactionaries and the victualling interests, led by the fishmongers.
It culminated in a forceful expression of community authority in 1319,
producing fresh constitutional reform that has been
described as "the highest peak of
achievement that a popular movement ever attained in medieval London,"
despite the fact that the new provisions were dampened or ignored in
the years that followed, as the national power-struggle encouraged
greater division and factionalism in London.

These events are not of direct consequence to the contest for power
between the parties of John Northampton and Nicholas Brembre, but
to some extent they show parallels. Such waters are muddied, however,
by the characters of the principals in the affair, particularly that
of Northampton. At the close of Edward III's reign, London's society,
economy and government was dominated by a small number of gilds 
mercers, grocers, fishmongers, vintners, and goldsmiths  whose
line of work naturally brought successful practitioners considerable
wealth and real estate, and thereby influence. These were the groups
who supplied most of the city's mayors and aldermen, and who have been
characterized as a capitalist elite,
of which Brembre was one of the wealthiest members.

A merchant heavily but not exclusively involved in the wool trade,
he like others who made a successful career in London (e.g. Whittington),
had no established city family on which to rely. However, he married
one of the heiresses of wealthy city vintner John Stodeye (mayor 1357/58),
an alliance that added to his already extensive city real estate when
his father-in-law died in 1376. Through marriage, business, and
property-holding, he was associated with other leading or up-and-coming
Londoners, such as William Walworth and John Philpot. Brembre appears
to have entered the grocers' gild around the time it was reorganizing
itself as the Company of Grocers, in 1372, and Philpot shortly after.
It may have been the expanding influence of the company that resulted
in Brembre and Philpot both being elected both as aldermen and sheriffs
in September 1372.

Compared to Brembre, John Northampton was of relatively modest means
and associations. He and his family were involved with the cloth and
leather-working crafts; his own gild, the drapers, was during
the late 1360s and '70s, losing ground to the grocers, in terms of
access to positions in city government. Yet he and his brothers were
not the kind of men to submit to the authority of others, if we may
judge from what are scattered pieces of evidence. The cause they
appear to have espoused was opposition to the king's policy of war
with France, in regard to its side-effects: turning over a large share
of control of the wool trade to foreign merchants, who counter-balanced
this by importing larger amounts of foreign products, such as cloth,
that hurt the trade of Londoners. The drapers' underlying aim, it
has been suggested, was to increase
their numbers among the aldermen, thereby influencing city policies
related to controlling the local market for English cloth and their
rivals in that trade, the fullers and dyers. In 1368 the king
temporarily restored the citizens' monopoly of the retail trade
in London, abolished by the Statute of York in 1351. But the
restoration was in regard to victuals, and cloth, leather, and goods
sold by avoirdupois were excluded; this may have been what fostered
an alliance of interests among the drapers, skinners, mercers, and
to an extent the grocers.

Telltale signs of the coming storm can be seen years in advance.
John Northampton had been bound over to keep the peace in 1365, in
the context of some personal quarrel. In 1369 he and John More,
along with other drapers and mercers, were required to put up bonds
to guarantee they would not initiate any violence or hold assemblies;
this may have been prompted by an attack on foreign merchants. In
1371 the renewal of taxation to support the war led to resistance
to tax-collection by Northampton's brother William, who himself
had already run into trouble with city authorities in 1365, when
arrested for trade abuses; he foolishly started a brawl outside
the mayor's house and was again arrested. That same year, after
the king had lectured the mayor and aldermen about keeping the peace
in London, John Northampton, John More, and William Essex were among
a group of twelve men arrested and imprisoned for a few months, being
released upon providing assurances that they would make no more
assemblies and would behave peaceably. It appears as though a party
intent on agitation was already forming around Northampton. In the
early 1370s, Northampton and Essex were members of a commission
investigating cases involving usurious loans made by foreign merchants.

Although his commercial activities have left only a few traces and
do not come close to the level of activity of Brembre's, John Northampton
was fairly prosperous and likely to have been one of the leading members
of his craft gild; certainly the men who were his principal supporters
in the coming political struggle were essentially those who served as
masters of the smaller craft gilds; such men wanted to rise in London
society and were in a position to harness the underlying discontent
among the crafts. Much of his landed property came, however, through
his second marriage, at some point in the early 1370s, to a co-heiress
of the Preston family. His and his wife's properties were concentrated
in Dowgate and Cordwainer Street Wards, the latter being where
his drapery business was located. The grocers were also based
in Cordwainer Ward and Northampton's wife's grandfather, John de Preston,
had been an important corder  a group that had a long-standing
working relationship with the grocers.

The contest

Northampton's property in Cordwainer Ward gave him both the
financial qualifications and local influence that made him a
potential choice for alderman. With perhaps the sponsorship, or
at least the acquiescence, of the grocers influential in that ward,
Northampton was elected its alderman in 1375. The following year
he was one of a group, which included several of his subsequent
followers, who advised the mayor to summon an assembly to deal
with charges that the city government had been run for some years
in an oppressive and self-interested manner  this was fallout
from the 'Good' Parliament's purge in mid-1376 of persons influential
at the royal court, in the circle surrounding John of Gaunt, and
including London vintner and financier Richard Lyons and two other
aldermen. Other London victuallers among the aldermen, including
Brembre, may have been under suspicion too, as they absented
themselves from the assembly that had been summoned. Although
there is no direct evidence Northampton was leading a specific party
at this point, his enemies subsequently accused him of being behind
the constitutional reforms of that came out of the assembly of
1 August 1376.

Certainly those reforms headed in the direction that Northampton
wanted: to reduce and eventually break the power of the aldermen,
the city's most powerful officials who represented the interests of
the city capitalists. One reform subjected the posts of aldermen
to annual election, no-one being eligible for re-election to
the same position until a year's interval. This had been one of
the reforms of 1319, confirmed by
royal charter, but was ignored once the mercantile patriciate
regained power. It was in effect for a few years after 1376, but
the stipulation about the interval was abolished in 1384, and
annual election in 1394. Further changes in 1376 transferred
the election of the common council from the wards to the craft gilds,
made the council a fixed body that had to be consulted at least
twice a quarter, and required that no measures put forward by mayor
and aldermen could become a local by-law unless approved by
the majority of the common councillors. It was from this group,
rather than from the aldermen, that Northampton was expecting to
find his main support for his broader aims of unseating the capitalists
from power, for a ward-elected council likely made the choice of
members more susceptible to aldermannic influence. However,
the reform seems to have had little impact on the composition of
the council, forcing Northampton to take other measures to stack
the council when he himself became mayor. Nor did annual election
impact greatly on the composition of the court of aldermen, which
continued to be dominated by grocers and fishmongers. Another reform
made the common council the agency for electing mayor and sheriffs,
rather than electors chosen by mayor and aldermen. These changes
in electoral procedures were also reversed in 1384.

Only twelve of the twenty-four aldermen gave their assent to
these reforms, and six of those were grocers; these assenters
perhaps felt it better to acquiesce in the reforms than provoke
a struggle that might bring the king's intervention  a prospect
highly feared by the aldermen, even though Edward III had limited
the circumstances under which the monarchy would seize the city liberties
into its own hands. The reforms may have been assisted by indirect
support from John of Gaunt, who had similar underlying interests
to Northampton's; this would help explain why Northampton later
turned (unsuccesfully) to Gaunt for aid in crucial moments. Brembre,
Philpot and Walworth were among those who were absent from
the proceedings; they presumably represented a more militant viewpoint,
but not yet inclined to open resistance. A
committee of eight was formed
to review the city ordinances; it included Northampton and several
of his known supporters. The constitutional reforms, along with
re-written oaths of office which probably emphasised the accountability
of officials to the community, were embodied in a new edition of
the city custumal, selecting for inclusion only those earlier
ordinances considered good by those now in power. It was called
the Jubilee Book.

The jubilation of the reformers was short-lived. In 1377 Brembre,
Walworth and Philpot came to the fore as the leaders of the
capitalist party and re-united it in the face of Gaunt's efforts
to extend the authority of the marshalsea court into the city.
They proposed to support the young Richard II (with money) against
Gaunt's influence. They were able to have the mayor then in office
deposed and replaced by Brembre; and a regulation, agreed to by a
special common council elected only by a select number of the more
important gilds, provided that any common councillor removed from
office for good cause could never be re-elected or serve as alderman.
The same year Northampton lost his aldermanry, and his supporters on
the common council were deposed on the charge of betraying city secrets
and not supporting the resistance to marshalsea jurisdiction.

His party crippled and Gaunt's influence superseded by the courtiers
surrounding Richard II, Northampton began to rebuild. He decided
to extend his powerbase into Dowgate Ward, where his wife's grandfather,
John de Preston, had once been alderman for an eighteen-year stretch.
An intensive period of buying property in that ward in 1381 and 1382,
including property owned by the man who had succeeded Preston as alderman,
was followed by Northampton's election as alderman in March 1382.

But by that time he had already secured the mayoralty at the election
of October 1381. How he managed this is not clear, but he evidently
found support from some quarters and, with the city still recuperating
from the effects of the Peasants' Revolt and probably not relishing
any internal disputes that might excite the populace, the capitalists
appear to have acquiesced in his election. Perhaps the grocers were
still interested in using Northampton's supposed influence with Gaunt.
As yet they had no inkling of the revolution he was contemplating.

The policies Northampton pursued at first were not such as to cause
great alarm among the capitalist party. His various actions, taken
together, have been described as a campaign against immorality:
reiterating earlier ordinances regulating the dress of prostitutes;
establishing punishments for prostitutes, adulterers, and lascivious
priests; and restricting the amounts of money to be given as offerings
at mass, baptism, or weddings (it being claimed that the wealthy,
by offering large sums, had established expectations that the poor
could not meet). He also moved, in February 1382, to have revoked
the 1377 ban from office on his supporters; it was immediately after
the revocation that John More was made an alderman. Northampton's
principal goal of undermining and displacing the existing London elite
began in the early summer. He attacked the trade monopoly of
the fishmongers; since the monopoly was a source of general resentment
in the city, it was not going to arouse widespread opposition among
the elite. This policy was pursued by the city's
parliamentary representatives  all Northampton supporters 
in October; when the fishmongers objected, More discredited them
by accusing two of their number of complicity with the rebels of 1381.
The popularity of this attack on
the fishmongers may have been what enabled him to obtain from
the king letters recommending Northampton's re-election that same month.

But in his second year of office, the broadening of his efforts
to undermine the power-base of the capitalists  beginning by
forcing Philpot out of aldermannic office  made it evident to
them that they had to have him removed from the mayoralty. The grocers
finally were prepared to join forces with the fishmongers in this;
Brembre led the way. Northampton was unable to get any support from
the king or Gaunt that might have countered this. With the success of
the capitalists' resurgence, through Brembre's election, Northampton
felt forced to more drastic measures to ensure what he had achieved
was not overthrown  measures, described in the documents above,
extreme enough to stimulate at least one key defection from his party.
His resentment immediately after the election was palpable, and although
he soon after made a show of peace and reconciliation with Brembre,
this was just to win himself a little time in which to gather his
thoughts. For a man with the extreme views of John Northampton, there
really was no middle ground. He was determined and inflexible.

It is not clear what Northampton's intent was with the protest march
of 7 February 1384. If to provoke a showdown with the mayor, then it
is strange he surrendered himself at the crucial moment. Perhaps he
was simply trying to demonstrate his level of support in the city.
Or perhaps he had some idea of marching well beyond Fleet, to Westminster,
to put his case to the king  a ploy dangerous and unlikely of
success, with the events of 1381 still resonating. Northampton may
simply have been uncertain how to proceed, now that Lancaster had
refused to support him, and perhaps hoped to stir up enough popular
support to intimidate Brembre into giving way  another slim hope,
given Brembre's strength of character.

Thomas Usk

At this point, Thomas Usk becomes a pivotal player in events, providing
a tool to assist Brembre in acting against Northampton. A Londoner
by birth, the son of a craftsman, Usk is little in evidence before
the 1380s. He had been trained as a scribe, a training that would
have involved acquiring some understanding of the law. It is possible
that Usk was recruited late in the day, well after Northampton had
come to power, although the sources are not so explicit as to rule out
Usk having done work for Northampton at an earlier period. When
subsequently trying to dissociate himself from the guilt of Northampton
and his lieutenants, he portrays his role as strictly that of employee:
clerk, messenger, publicist, perhaps even legal advisor. As an employee,
it does not follow that he espoused the political philosophy of
Northampton, any more than Cratchit had the same outlook on life as
Scrooge. However, upon taking up the mayoralty, Northampton realized
he could not rely on the city bureaucrats, whose loyalties lay with
those they had been accustomed to serve. He may have found a
sympathiser in one of the clerks of the bureaucracy, John Marchaunt,
but more likely used Marchaunt for official documentation, and for
that relating to his behind-scenes machinations made use of
private sector secretaries.

If Northampton felt he could trust Usk  and trust him with
some fairly important tasks  he must have believed Usk was
a sympathiser with his aims. Usk himself admitted to being
sufficiently comfortable with his role in Northampton's circle,
involving himself in governmental policies that he believed initially
at least would be good for the community, that he did not care if
this incurred him the enmity of the aldermannic class. But later,
he claimed, he came to see Northampton's aims in a different light.
Interestingly, Usk is seen in 1376 in the role of attorney
successfully suing someone who had assaulted John Bere, one of
Northampton's more prominent and unwavering supporters. Although
we cannot safely draw conclusions from such isolated evidence, it
may be Usk had some peripheral involvement with the Northampton faction
prior to 1383; Northampton must have had some reason to select and
place his trust in Usk.

Usk's change of heart came while he was suffering imprisonment, a
traumatic experience especially for someone of learning and
artistic sensibility. Following Northampton's arrest, his lieutenants
continued to agitate, in the hopes of obtaining his release or, if
necessary, rescuing him by force. More and Norbury were therefore
also arrested; Essex had already gone into hiding, perhaps abroad.
Usk himself was under arrest by early August 1384. Whether through
pressure from Brembre's people, as Usk himself later claimed, or
concern about his future, or out of genuine distaste for what
Northampton's movement had become, Usk decided to make a confession.
Brembre had Usk transferred to his own house, a less uncomfortable
form of detention. Usk composed the appeal (set of accusations)
given above and, as the process of law required, delivered it to
the coroner.

This is not the only example of Usk's writing that has come down
to us. He is in fact better known as the author of The Testament
of Love, a work that survives to us only in a sixteenth-century
rewrite and was for some centuries mistakenly attributed to Chaucer.
The idiosyncratic work has elements of philosophy and allegory,
touches on a range of subjects, and was in part an apologia for
his seeming betrayal of Northampton and a consolation for the hatred
this brought him. It reveals a familiarity  sometimes
apparently secondhand  with the writings of some key
Christian philosophers, such as Boethius and St. Augustine, as
well as those of his far better-known contemporaries, Chaucer and
Gower. It is believed to have been written between the time of
Northampton's fall and Usk's own, probably closer to the former
event. Since Usk places the narrator in prison, it is possible
he conceived the work during his imprisonment following Northampton's
arrest  an imprisonment that caused him to be
resentful, for there he felt
abandoned by his allies, and that they had used rather than
valued him. But the main purpose of the work seems to be
to justify his confession and portray himself as a man of integrity,
who could be trusted with further positions of responsibility;
the work was probably written following Northampton's conviction,
when neither faction had confidence in him. A portion of his text
presents his own perspective on the affair, reiterating positions
taken in his appeal against Northampton, and also reflecting
conventional political philosophies of that time; whether
those philosophies were always his or represent a realignment
(or even brainwashing) as the result of his imprisonment, cannot
be said.

Given the evidently autobiographical nature of parts of his text,
but bearing in mind that Usk tends to talk in general terms rather
than specifics (Northampton not being mentioned by name), that
Testament of Love is couched in a form that is literary
rather than historical, and that it was written after his transfer
of loyalties and the collapse of the party he originally supported,
we are offered what may be some insights into his motivations.
He was evidently deeply perturbed by the fact that his former allies
who previously (apparently in his role of messenger) had commended
him as one to be believed, now condemned him as a liar and
a betrayer of his master, while those who had branded him as
a villain subsequently relied on portraying him as credible. He
is therefore at pains to defend his integrity as one dedicated to
the truth.

Usk explains his involvement with Northampton as commitment to what
he had initially believed a meritorious cause, but
observes that "common profit in
the community does not obtain unless peace and tranquility through
just governance proceed from that profit." Consequently his
conscience later told him he had deluded himself, that Northampton
was motivated by malice and envy, and that the cause he was aiding
would produce not benefit to the community, but tyranny. Despite
this change of heart, those he had opposed ("the mighty senators")
imprisoned him and pressured him, with threats of life imprisonment
or execution, to make a confession that would lead to the defeat
of Northampton. He persuaded himself therefore that it was his
duty to make a statement in order to rescue the community 
"the commonalty being above all things else what I am bound to
maintain and defend"  from the risk of a disruption of peace,
the attribute "most necessary to commonalties and cities."

This statement begins with a more literary rendering of several of
the points covered in his appeal:

First, those persons who had induced me to serve their purposes, I
not knowing the secret intent of their meaning, drew also the
feeble-witted people, who have no insight of governmental prudence,
to clamor and cry out on matters that they themselves directed;
and under the pretence of the common advantage, they emboldened
the ruled to take on the actions of the rulers, and they also
directed people innocent of political cunning to cry after things
which 'may not,' they said, ' stand unless we serve as the executors
of those matters, and unless authority of execution is handed over
to us by common election. And that must come by strength of your
maintenance, for we, expelled from such degree of power, the
oppressiveness of these old hinderers shall again rise up and
put you in subjection such that you will complain in endless woe.
The government,' they said, 'of your city, left in the hands of
extortionate citizens, shall bring in pestilence and destruction
to you, good men; and therefore, let us have the common administration
of government to lessen such evils. Also,' they said, 'it is proper
to commend the good and punish the guilty as they deserve. There are
many citizens who are afraid of actions that will be taken, because
the extortions they have committed are continually against these
purposes and all other good intentions.'

Usk goes on to describe the failed attempt by Northampton and
his associates to win at all costs the election of 1383, followed
by the effort to have the election annulled, leading in due course
to their trial before the king.

The trial

It seems to have been Northampton himself who sought to have
his case heard by the king, but this may well have suited Brembre,
who seems to have aimed to have Northampton tried for treason or
sedition, by emphasising the conspiratorial character of
the Northampton faction and its intent to provoke social disorder;
a conviction for treason would allow for Northampton's execution.
Usk's appeal was invaluable in this, in that it was tantamount to
the confession/accusation of an approver: a convicted criminal
who turned king's evidence on his fellows and validated his
accusations by acknowledging his own complicity. The trial took
place at Reading in mid-August. Usk's appeal was presented and
apparently accepted as if that of an approver, even though Usk
had not himself been convicted or even charged. In Testament
of Love Usk claims that, true to approver's tradition, he had
offered to prove his accusations through combat, but that
the accused disdained that offer, preferring to confess and threw
themselves on the mercy of the court. However, this was part of
Usk's effort to assert the truthfulness of his accusations against
Northampton. Independent evidence indicates rather that Northampton,
after denying Usk's charges, offered to put his fate in the hands
of God via a judicial combat. The court was not interested in
the outdated tradition of combat, which was also repugnant to
London custom; nor was it in Brembre's interests to have matters
decided in that way. Usk was shuffled off, and the king  provoked
by Northampton's lack of deference, particularly his demand to
have Gaunt present to speak for him  sentenced Northampton
to be hung. At the queen's intercession, this was commuted to
life imprisonment. Both he and Usk were returned to custody.

Northampton was able to raise jurisdictional uncertainties and claim
a new trial, which took place in London before justices of the
King's Bench in September. Brembre decided on a different tack,
not involving Usk directly but making use of his confession. An
inquisition was held in St. Mary-le-Bow parish to pronounce on
the evidence against Northampton. It may have been one of several
inquisitions, for it was not unusual in the case of serious offences
to widen the range of public opinion consulted, by holding multiple
inquisitions; an example is mentioned above regarding the
inquisitions into citizens' involvement in the Peasants' Revolt,
of which only the findings most suitable to the results desired
by those in power were then forwarded to a court which had
the authority to convict and punish the offenders. The findings of
the St. Mary-le-Bow jury are so similar in content and structure
as to be clearly an edited version of Usk's script, in which
the terminology of the charges is now recast as inquisition jury
presentments, omitting the personalized elements  Usk's
own opinions or readings of situations  altering Usk's
personal admissions of complicity into simply the inclusion of
his name among the list of offenders, and adding some fine details
and a couple of additional, minor charges. Of these new charges,
the matter of influencing the choice of the parliamentary representatives
does not seem anything especially beyond normal political machinations;
similarly, the charge that More contemplated accusing Brembre
of supporting Farndon, although not implausible, appears equally
insubstantial.

We should not think of the inquisition presentments as a balanced
statement of evidence presented by hostile and friendly "witnesses"
but rather as a list of charges against the accused whose validity
the jury, by reiterating, was affirming. Usk's appeal was clearly
the basis for the charges on which this jury was asked to pronounce;
we see, for example, the same political perspective of
the patriciate reflected, characterizing the players in the piece
as the "good men" who have been injured, the "wicked" conspirators
of the Northampton party, and the lower class of townsmen who were
not fit to have a say in government. The jury's restatement of
the charges emerged again in 1388, along with other inquisition
findings on the events of the early 1380s, when Northampton's
followers were seeking pardon or compensation for convictions or
oppressions suffered at the hands of Brembre. The text was again
altered, further depersonalizing it; this is the version given
above from the Coram Rege roll.

The aftermath

At the trial in London Northampton was again convicted. The
city authorities urged his execution. Along with More and Norbury
he was imprisoned for a while; but, through the intercession either
of Gaunt or the chancellor,
Michael de la Pole, this was commuted
to a sentence of exile from London. Due to the objections of
the Brembre party, Northampton was not allowed to come any closer
to the city than 100 miles; in 1386, Gaunt obtained a reduction
of this to 80 miles. After Gaunt's return in 1390 from his
Spanish adventure his influence was sufficient to obtain a pardon
for the trio. Northampton returned to the city, but almost
everything he had tried to achieve had been dismantled and
the old patriciate was even more strongly entrenched in power
than ever.

Removal of the leaders did not immediately quell the struggle between
the factions; underlying grievances continued to bubble to
the surface for several years. Just two months after his election,
Brembre found it necessary to prohibit any public assemblies
and encourage citizens' arrests of anyone found engaging in
such gatherings. As he approached the next election, a sign
of his continued anxiety are the ordinances reiterating the
illegality of conspiratorial gatherings, forbidding any citizen
from bringing a petition before parliament on the subject of
the government of the city, and restricting attendance at
the election to the "senior, good and important men" of the city.
He evidently anticipated opposition at the election to his
own plans of having himself re-elected. Among the accounts we
have of that election is the one given above, in a continuation
of the chronicle of Ralph Higden (which originally went up to
1327); of several continuators, including Higden himself,
the writer of the events from 1383 is believed to have been monk
of Westminster abbey  the strong interest in London affairs
being one of the arguments for this. As a member of a community
in which conformity, harmony and obedience was expected,
the monk was naturally more sympathetic to Brembre than to
Northampton.

To contest the 1384 mayoral election, the Northampton party
found a figurehead in goldsmith
Nicholas Twyford;
although not really a supporter of Northampton, Twyford had been
one of the aldermen acquiescing in the constitutional reforms of 1376,
and was an enemy of Brembre for his own reasons. The crafts that had
supported Northampton turned out in force on election day, some
of them armed, to exert influence on behalf of Twyford. Brembre,
not foolish enough to rely on the public proclamation made just
before election day forbidding anyone to bear arms or armour or
to come to the election unless specifically summoned, was ready
for them. He had brought in a force of his own, some probably
tenants of his estates outside London, had equipped them with
arms he had smuggled into the Guildhall, and had posted his men
both there and in ambush along Cheapside; when the pro-Twyford
demonstrators gathered at the Guildhall, they were dispersed by
an aggressive charge of Brembre's men, and sent fleeing home.
Brembre was re-elected, as he was again in 1385, and at the
following two elections his close supporter, Nicholas Exton,
followed him in office; they ensured that members of their faction
held other key offices. After the collapse of that party's fortunes,
however, Twyford won the mayoralty in 1388 as a moderate candidate,
yet one whose sympathies by now lay more with the patriciate's
constitutional views.

Throughout his period in power, Brembre continued to take
legal action against individual supporters of the Northampton faction,
on any pretext he could find, leading to imprisonments and even
executions. He is likely behind the further petition in 1385 to
have Northampton executed, on grounds of the continued disruptions
occurring in the city.

Opportunities were also taken by others to settle personal scores
by accusing their enemies of affiliation with the Northampton faction.
The example given above is a set of accusations made, in early
September 1387, against mercer Thomas Austin by his former
apprentice John Banham, backed by fellow apprentice John Hore.
Whether any of these accusations, which are reminiscent in type
to those penned by Usk, have substance is
uncertain. Although Austin was
a member of the mercer's gild that backed Northampton, and as such
he sat on the common council during Northampton's first mayoralty,
his name is not among the sometimes long lists of those singled out
for mention as Northampton supporters; and, in the late '80s when
the patriciate was allowing access to power by others than
Brembre factionalists, he was made common councillor, alderman,
and sheriff in quick succession. This suggests he was a
moderate  quite different from the picture painted by
Banham. Furthermore, the motivation for the accusations was
less than public-spirited: earlier in the year Banham was sued
by Austin to account for revenues from merchandize he had sold
on Austin's behalf from 1382 to 1385, and was imprisoned in
consequence of the charge (and later convicted in part). The
counter-accusations may be seen as an attempt to discredit Austin
and pre-empt his suit. Although there is no smoke without fire,
some of those accusations are so vague, circumstantial, or difficult
to corroborate, that a jury should have had a hard time pronouncing
with confidence on them.

Nonetheless, in the highly-charged political atmosphere, the
accusations were credible enough and were designed to arouse
fear in those then in power. They responded by arresting Thomas,
his wife, his brother Roger, and Hochon (elsewhere called Hugh),
and putting together a jury to rubber-stamp the charges. It is
not impossible that the Austins  perhaps Roger in
particular  were already suspect and the Brembre party
had been looking for an opportunity to act against them; Banham's
predicament could have provided that opportunity, to find another
tool to be used as Usk had been, to bring treason charges. Most
likely the accusations are a mix of truths, exaggerations, and
fabrications, but they nonetheless illustrate the kind of attitudes
and behaviours that were expected in the context of the factional
animosities of the time. They also show how the focus of grievances
was on the key personalities, rather than on underlying issues
of governance. Furthermore they reflect the resentment towards
the way in which power struggles at the national level were
intertwined with those internal to London. The document translated
here is a response to a demand by Chancery for copies of all
the evidence; the ensuing review of the case by Chancery resulted
in the release of Thomas and the others in February 1388. The shift
in political power at the national level may have been responsible
for the London authorities' decision not to pursue the matter further.

Brembre's vacation of the mayoralty in 1386 was taken as an
opportunity by several of the non-victualling gilds to complain
to parliament about his behaviour while he was in office. The mercers,
for example, began their petition with a description of how
Brembre had used force to win the 1383 election, and continued
by telling how he persecuted his enemies thereafter, how he
manipulated the 1384 elections first by summoning only his
supporters to vote, and then violently intimidated any others
who came to the Guildhall; after which he continued to bring
false charges (the mercers claimed) against their members. The
petition also dwells on Brembre's close relationship with Richard II,
which he was able to use to prevent his enemies appealing to the king.

In 1387 the cordwainers complained to parliament about the burning
of the Jubilee Book; later that year Exton charged them under
the terms of Brembre's prohibition of assemblies. That same year
Lord de la Zouche was lobbying at court for a pardon for Northampton,
prompting Exton's administration to send him a blunt letter advising
him to mind his own business. In 1388 it was the turn of the cutlers,
complaining to parliament that Exton was continuing Brembre's
extortionate policies, and asking for the permanent removal from
office of his cronies, recorder William Cheyne and sheriff Hugh Fastolf.
Northampton's return to the city in 1390 sparked fresh fears among
authorities of a re-opening of old wounds, and led eventually to
mayor Bamme's proclamation against public discussion of Northampton
or Brembre. But to regain power would have been more of an uphill
battle than it was in the 1370s, and Northampton perhaps now
lacked the will or the energy. He played no further role in
city politics.

Brembre's pre-eminence, achieved in 1383, lasted little longer
than had Northampton's. He had already earned unpopularity among
some of the London gilds during an earlier mayoralty and, following
his displacement of Northampton, ruled with an iron hand and used
force to maintain himself in power, in a London still unsettled.
More significantly, he was too closely linked to national politics;
having loaned large sums to Richard II, he had too much invested
in the status quo. He tried unsuccessfully to persuade the Londoners
to fight for Richard against the Lords Appellant. The latter, at
the Merciless Parliament in 1388, included Brembre in the list of
impeachments. He was tried, obtained no support from mayor Exton
or any other of those fellow Londoners who had once supported him, now
sensible enough to steer clear of a national conflict; yet his opponents
among the craft gilds took the opportunity to put forward complaints
against him, seeing his overthrow imminent. It was a foregone conclusion
that he would be convicted and sentenced to death. Drawn ignominiously
to the Tyburn gallows, he was there
 according to Thomas Favent 
confronted by Northampton's son, from whom he asked forgiveness for his
treatment of his old enemy.

As for Usk, his transfer of loyalties did him little good. Willing
to be used, perhaps looking for a cause, he had become a tool to help
the Northampton faction achieve its ends, then received the same
treatment by Brembre's faction. Once Brembre had Usk's appeal,
its author's use to him was limited. He was rewarded for his
contribution to Northampton's downfall with a pardon for his part
in the affair. Eventually, he won the confidence of the royalist party
sufficiently that he gained appointment as under-sheriff of
Middlesex (1387); whether Testament of Love was any help
there we cannot say, for it is not clear whether Usk's contemporaries
read it. His rehabilitation was to prove his downfall: he was caught
up in the charges of maladministration brought against Brembre and
others of the king's faction; in particular he was accused of
having drawn up false charges against some of the Appellants. Still
the target for resentment in the city over his betrayal of Northampton,
two weeks after Brembre's execution he too ended up at Tyburn, drawn,
hanged, then (still alive) slowly beheaded (his head was to decorate
Newgate). He went to his death
asserting the truth of his appeal against Northampton. By contrast,
Brembre had, with the noose around his neck, admitted to Northampton's son
that he had wronged his father  a confession we can attribute
to Brembre's preoccupation with his afterlife destiny rather than
guilt about his past.

An assessment

The charges laid against Northampton, although engineered by
his opponents, are in broad terms credible; some points are
corroborated by other sources. But they are also in part a case
of the victors rewriting history from their own perspective.
Northampton's own account of affairs would have been somewhat
different, if not in substance, then in perspective. At the same
time, the Usk appeal must necessarily have been a selective version
of events, in that it focused on the actions of only one faction.
For example, in preparation for the 1383 mayoral election Northampton
had packed the common council with his supporters, had installed
a few supporters among the aldermen (although only a small number
can be unequivocally identified with his party), had guards posted
to turn away any hostile voters, and should have been in a position
to intimidate hostile aldermen against voting for any alternate
candidate. Given all this, it is hard to imagine that Brembre
could have emerged victorious in the election without having been
able to bring to bear greater force than that provided for by
Northampton; certainly at his re-election in 1384 he premeditatedly
used armed force to frustrate the hopes of an opposing candidate.
Yet that aspect is not dwelt on in Usk's appeal or the inquisition
presentments, other than as an uncorroborated claim used by Northampton
to try to obtain the intervention of Lancaster in city affairs;
this piece of "evidence" was important not only for condemning
Northampton in many eyes for his disloyalty to the city, but also
because Lancaster's rejection provided grounds to dismiss a claim
that was otherwise broadly credible. But we should not expect
Brembre's actions to come under question; the presentments, we
must remember, were charges not evidence, and Brembre was not
the one on trial.

Northampton has been described by Pamela Nightingale as an astute,
calculating politician, using radicalism only as a tool to achieve
an essentially reactionary goal of supplanting the gilds then
dominating city government with others, notably his own. Although
the element of self-interestedness is undoubtedly present, it is
hard not to see Northampton as a radical in some regards. A capable
politician is able to reconcile interests and find the path of
compromise. This was not Northampton. The extreme measures to
which he resorted during his second mayoralty, perhaps partly out
of desperation as he sensed a resistance against him crystallizing,
had him increasingly working outside of the system. Northampton
might perhaps have accomplished some enduring reforms had he
chosen to work within the system. There was widespread sympathy
for some of his aims. But if his principal aim was to replace
one set of power-holders with another, then we may concede he
was astute enough to know that this could not be done without
radical changes; the events of 1376-77 having shown that changes
within the system could easily be reversed once power changed hands.

In this sense, we should not imagine that Northampton's
political convictions were democratic in a way that we might
understand them in a modern context. Although he appears to
have put more faith in the "power of the people" than was
warranted (just as he seems to have overestimated his relationship
with Gaunt), it may be doubted whether Northampton truly had any
more confidence in popular decision-making than did the
ruling class, which was contemptuous of the idea that such
ignorant persons were qualified to have a significant say in
government. On the other hand, we should not represent
Northampton's faction merely as Northampton and a group of
followers. The continued agitation of his party, after he himself
was removed from the game, indicates that the underlying
dissatisfaction with the almost monopolistic hold a few of
the leading gilds had on government was real enough and not
Northampton's invention.

Nonetheless, a leaderless party could not keep itself afloat for
long. No political perspective in medieval English towns favoured
a form of democratic government in which there was sustained and
meaningful popular participation. Then, as today, good leadership
was seen as the key to good government. Northampton's aim, to
overthrow the ruling elite, was acceptable insofar as it meant
replacing the distrusted rulers with others that the populace
hoped, perhaps even expected, would rule better. He knew such
aims could not be achieved simply by legislating constitutional changes.
It was necessary to ensure that his followers continued to hold
power, in order to maintain a reformed constitution, and that
other measures be put in place to secure what he had accomplished:
obtaining statutory recognition of the reforms, and using
annual election to ensure that those in office were supporters
of a reformed constitution. And it was necessary to remove
the leaders of the elite from access to power, whether by
disqualification, exile, or death; Brembre saw the same approach
as necessary to defeat Northampton's party.

Such measures would never have allowed for the "power to the people"
approach that Northampton exploited to win office temporarily.
Nor would the dictator/mob style of democracy that Northampton was
prepared to install have found approval with the central government,
since it would not well have served two fundamental requirements
that government had of urban administrations: law and order, and
revenues. None of this mattered. Northampton's intent to break
the hold of the wealthy on government was a non-starter. That
hold was too strong, too long-standing, and a leaderless populace
was unable to mount real opposition to the elite regaining control
of government, without the significant violence for which it had
no stomach. The live-and-die together bond, which hearks back to
the roots of the communal movement when the townspeople were not
so divided by class consciousness, was still fine for mob mentality,
but no more maintainable when the Londoners' fiery leader was out
of the picture than for the peasant army when Wat Tyler lay dying.

Northampton's failure could be ascribed to his own uncompromising
nature. Brembre was little better, and such success as he achieved
was because he had the status quo on his side. On a personal level,
both men ultimately paid for their sins. London was caught up at
this time in factionalism, just as England was embroiled in
factionalism in national politics. Not until more moderate leaders
took the helm were London affairs able to settle down. For both
Northampton and Brembre, politics proved a fickle mistress. As
Usk wrote, "Fortune sheweth her fayrest whan she thynketh to begyle."

NOTES

"the Bow"
I.e. the parish of St. Mary-le-Bow. This was within Cordwainer Ward,
where More was alderman and had his residence, and where Northampton
and some of his lieutenants held property.

"John More"
One of Northampton's principal and long-time supporters. When
Northampton was elected alderman of Dowgate Ward in March 1381,
More was elected alderman of Cordwainer Street Ward (Northampton's
earlier powerbase, of which he had been alderman 1375-77). After
Northampton became mayor in October 1381, he, probably with
Northampton's connivance, brought accusations against five aldermen
from the victualling trades that Northampton hated of aiding and
abetting the rebellious peasants in their assault on London earlier
in the year [see note below on Sibille etc.].
More went to trial with Northampton.

"Richard Norbury"
A prominent supporter of Northampton, under whose regime he was an
alderman and a parliamentary representative for the city. Also a
prominent mercer, having served as warden of the gild. He went to
trial with Northampton.

"William Essex"
Another of Northampton's closest supporters and possibly a one-time
business partner. He was one of the leading drapers, having served
as gild warden. He had served the city as one of its parliamentary
representatives ni 1370 and 1376, and again during Northampton's
mayoral terms. After Northampton's arrest, he escaped trial himself
throught flight.

"William Walworth"
A wealthy fishmonger who was one of the principal leaders of the
group of merchant capitalists against whom Northampton's efforts
were directed; an alderman since 1368, and mayor in 1374/75 (just
prior to the constitutional reforms of 1376) and again in 1380/81
(immediately preceding Northampton's term), in the latter term he
having attempted to reverse the reforms of 1376. He also gained fame
and knighthood for his part in striking down the leader of the
Peasants' Revolt. His death in 1385 pre-empted
the possibility he would be involved in the fall of Brembre.

"judicial office"
I.e. offices in city government involving presidency of a court,
such as mayor or sheriff.

"Adam Bame"
As a leading goldsmith (warden of the gild in 1377) Adam Bamme
was wealthier and more prominent than most of Northampton's supporters.
He had been an opponent of the"capitalist" party in the 1370s, despite
a family connection to Brembre through their wives, and initially
backed Northampton's reform effort, ; he served as sheriff during
Northampton's second term, although technically (but not
insignificantly) elected towards the close of Northampton's first
term. But when Northampton failed in his bid for re-election
in 1383, Bamme switched to the opposing side. He was presumably
more moderate than Northampton, although this did not save him
from a temporary disgrace, in exclusion from the aldermannic ranks,
during Brembre's mayoralty. Nonetheless he had obtained an
aldermanry again before the close of the decade. It was during
Bamme's mayoralty of 1396/97 that the proclamation was made
forbidding anyone to discuss the Brembre/Northampton matter because
it only led to dissension; Bamme died during his mayoralty.

"Willyngham"
Possibly the same tavern-owner at which Northampton's party held
meetings, or a relative.

"Marchaund"
Probably John Marchaunt, one of the clerks of the chamber at this
time; his association with Northampton did not wreck his career
prospects, for he became London's town clerk ca.1400, serving
it well and training an even greater successor,
John Carpenter.

"John Philpot"
One of the merchant capitalists against whom Northampton aimed
his reforms, grocer John Philpot became an alderman in 1372, and
mayor in 1378. He was a business partner and political ally
of fellow-grocer Nicholas Brembre, as well as husband (by the
mid-1370s) of a sister of Brembre's wife. He was also a leader
of the anti-Gaunt party in the city. By 1377, he, Brembre and
Walworth were the leaders of the party opposed by Northampton;
at the same time Brembre and Philpot held the two posts of
collector of customs in the port of London. Philpot loaned
large sums of money to the king, to support the war against
France, and even financed entire expeditions against the French
or French pirates operating in the Channel. He was involved
in raising loans for the king throughout the city, which were
to be repaid from customs proceeds, which Philpot himself
co-managed. However, there is no independent evidence of any
embezzlement here, and the timing of the accusations laid at
More's instigation were clearly an attempt to discredit or
disqualify a potential opponent in the election; the terminology
of the documents implies that the proposal to make him ineligible
did not succeed. Philpot, who was knighted in 1381, was favoured
not only by the king but also by the citizens, and may have been
the only member of the capitalist party that could have wrested
the mayoralty away from Northampton. In the event, since
Northampton's attack, as mayor, on the fishmongers was no
particular threat to Philpot's mercantile activities, he (unlike
Brembre) was either prepared to acquiesce in Northampton's election
to a second term, or any resistance was cowed when Northampton
removed him from his aldermanry in October 1382. He also attempted,
unsuccessfully, conciliation when Northampton actively opposed Brembre's
mayoralty. He died before Brembre's ultimate fall from power.

"commons"
What is being referred to here is the common council, rather
than the community per se.

"ordinance against the fishmongers"
These ordinances of June 1382 in essence prohibited London fishmongers
from buying up stocks of fish brought into the city by outsiders,
or from making partnership arrangements for such purchase in
advance of the fish arriving, so as to sell them with an added
profit margin tacked on. As the price of such a staple as fish
was a matter of general resentment in the city, blamed on
the monopolistic practices of the London fishmongers, Northampton's
measures found support, or at least acceptance, among most
Londoners including other victuallers. But when the next
parliament (October 1382) expanded the attack to the
victualling trades generally, and particularly tried to
exclude victuallers from "judicial office", London's merchant class
recognized the need to oust Northampton from the mayoralty.

"to represent them"
London was represented in parliaments by four citizens; at this
period, two were chosen by the common council, two by mayor and
aldermen.

"Thomas Carleton"
An embroiderer who had at an earlier date (1364) been bound over to
keep the peace, he owed his improvement in wealth and status partly to
being given the post of king's armourer in 1368. After being superseded
therein at Richard II's accession, he turned more of his attention
to local politics and built up his property in Cripplegate ward, for
which he was elected alderman during Northampton's mayoralty of 1381/82
and shortly after sent by that administration to the parliament where he,
along with More, Norbury, and Essex, pushed through restrictions on the
fishmongers. By this time he had some affiliation with the tailors' gild,
from which Northampton was receiving support. Carleton was one of
Northampton's more prosperous supporters, and perhaps one of the most active,
depending on to which evidence one pays attention. He was doubtless
attracted to Northampton's party, as many were, by the prospect of
breaking the power of the victuallers, and may have been among those who
became alarmed by the subsequent extremism of Northampton's policies.
Although named among the leaders of that party in the indictments, he did
not suffer as dreadful a fate as the others, although he lost his
alderman's post (in fact due to Northampton's prohibition of re-elections
to the aldermanries) and did not regain it until after Brembre's
administration had fallen, but then held it only for a short while
before his death in 1388. He left behind a widow and a daughter; some of
his property had to be sold to pay his debts, although his estate was
still able to fund a chantry and pay for a marble tomb slab, into which
was carved a cross, his coat of arms, and the date of his death. He also
bequeathed two books  a bible and stories of the saints' lives 
but there is no mention of a commonplace book (extant) believed to have
been compiled for him, containing copies of national and civic laws, some
extracts from chronicles, and a few documents related to his private
business.

"an authorization"
The original has a patent; the inquisition presentment
shows that this was not letters patent but a breve domini Regis
patens.

"to punish usurers"
This was one part of Northampton's programme against immorality.
Usk's concern with the move, however, was because he felt it would
provide Northampton with more power to use the offence as a stick
against his political opponents. Chambers and Daunt state that
the petition was refused on the grounds that it would prejudice
the jurisdiction of the Church in such matters, and that city custom
and common law already gave the London authorities some powers
in policing this offence. The two sets of accusations seem to
suggest that the writ was obtained and acted upon, unless Northampton
was jumping the gun.

"Walter Sybile, John Horn, and Adam Carlell"
Fishmongers Sibille and Horn, and grocer Carlille, were among 5
aldermen  all victuallers  accused of complicity in
the Peasant's Revolt. The evidence is not solid enough to know
if there was any basis to this; possibly some victualling elements
took advantage of the situation to act against the interests of
Northampton's party (none of whom was ever accused of supporting
the rebels). The accusations against Sibille, Horn and Carlille
were made by More before the parliament of October 1382, after
Sibille had protested the petition that resulted in anti-fishmonger
ordinances, and were essentially that the three obstructed official
efforts to prevent the rebels from entering the city. If the
inquisitions sent to the king's justices were biased we cannot
rely on their detailing of the charges, but it does seem likely
that Horn at least offered the rebels some encouragement, with
a view to taking advantage of the tense situation to take some
legal matters into his own hand. The charges were partly
politically motivated, but the accused were eventually acquitted
once Northampton's opponents had regained control of city government.

"best served the king"
That is, only the findings that supported the prosecution position
were sent to King's Bench for follow-up.

"Robert Franceys"
One of the goldsmith supporters of Northampton, but not politically
prominent; in 1378 he obtained, through the intervention of Lancaster,
a pardon for a homicide, and in 1395 was again tied up in a murder.

"Thomas Farndon"
Goldsmith Thomas Farndon is one of the few citizens to have clearly
supported the rebellious peasants; or rather, to have taken
advantage of the havoc to settle scores against personal enemies,
having supported the execution of a Prior who had had him evicted
at an earlier date, having (it was claimed) compiled a list of
citizens to be executed, and being in the process of wrecking one
Londoner's house when he was arrested.

"the mayor would speak"
Northampton was still mayor until Brembre would take his oath of office
on 28 October.

"the Neyt"
An estate to the west of Westminster, belonging to the abbey, where
John of Gaunt would stay occasionally; the name survives in the
modern Knightsbridge.

"Cheap"
Cheapside was the city centre in medieval times.

"it was presented"
That is, as the findings of the inquisition jury.

"Easter 1382"
Although Powell and Trevelyan interpret this as 22 March, Pasche
usually refers to Easter Sunday, which fell on April 6, or to
Easter Week following that date. Lent ended on 22 March. A precise
date may not be intended by the document.

"11 October 1382"
Powell and Trevelyan interpret die sabbati proximo ante festum
translationis sancti Edwardi anno Ric. II 6 as 13 June 1383,
but since the text goes on to identify the date as prior to
the election of Northampton to a second term, the date must be
before 13 October 1382. Powell and Trevelyan selected the wrong
St. Edward in interpreting this date.

"election of John Norhampton"
Some writers have suggested that it was unconstitutional for Northampton
to be elected for a second, consecutive term. In fact, although not
the normal situation, it was recognized that if a mayor had served
particularly well and there was strong public demand for him to
continue in office, a second term was permissible. Northampton's
party probably aimed at arranging for the commoners at the election
to nominate only him, instead of the usual two candidates from whom
mayor and alderman would choose one. (On this see
"Mayoral and shrieval elections at London".)

"placed on the council"
The original positi fuerunt in dicto consilio may perhaps
mean "made privy to these deliberations".

"other sheriff"
More had been elected in September as sheriff, and thus served out
most of his term under Brembre. The other sheriff, Simon Wynchecombe,
was an armourer; it is difficult to imagine Northampton did not see
him as a supporter, or at least not an enemy, although Wynchecombe
was later one of the signatories to the petition demanding Northampton
be executed.

"uphold the king's peace"
At West Cheap they arrested one of the insurgents, John Constantyn,
a cordwainer and a relative of Northampton's wife, and executed him
as a warning to the other rioters.

"guarantors"
Northampton was required to put up a bond of £5,000 to keep
the peace, a transaction that took place in the Guildhall, where
a record was made of it.

"Geoffrey Waldern"
A draper, not one of the wealthiest citizens, but among the
more affluent of Northampton's supporters. He was a common councillor
from 1382 to 1385, surviving the fall of Northampton's faction,
thanks to a political about-face. Although he participated in
the gathering Northampton summoned in February 1384, and subsequently
stood as surety for one of the more violent partisans arrested on
that occasion, in June he was at the council meeting where it was
agreed to blame Northampton for the recent disturbances in the city,
he was shortly after put on the committee to revise the Jubilee Book,
and his name was among those who petitioned in March 1385 for
Northampton's immediate execution. This was political expediency;
that some sympathies still lay with the reform movement (if not
with Northampton personally) are suggested by his willingness to
act as surety for a Londoner accused in 1386 of having attempted
to disrupt the re-election of Brembre as mayor. Such sympathies,
if perceived, did not prevent his business prospering up to his
death ca.1396; he never entered the ranks of the aldermannic elite,
but was sufficiently trusted to send as a city representative to
the parliament of 1395.

"Robert Cumberton"
Northampton was occasionally referred to by this surname, and it was
the surname commonly used by other members of his family.

"Thomas Lincolle"
Although a supporter of Northampton, and one of his common councillors,
he was a fishmonger, one example of how the victuallers vs.
non-victuallers characterization of the conflict is not clear-cut.

"encircling their forces"
Given the fate of John Constantyn, it is possible that potencius
coartasset might mean by depriving them of their leaders.

"The document proceeds"
Powell and Trevelyan do not transcribe this part of the text.

"St. Michael of Hog Lane"
More commonly known as St. Michael Wood Street.

"Henry Vannere"
A common councillor and a vintner (his family having a pedigree in
the city wine trade), and later alderman under Brembre's administration,
he was also Brembre's brother-in-law (by marriage to another daughter
of John Stodeye) and business partner. During Brembre's ascendancy
he served on a committee to dismantle the reforms Northampton had put
in place. He was serving as sheriff
when Richard II and the Londoners fell out over their refusal to loan the king
money, and was imprisoned with other city officials on the pretext of
maladministration, but released within a few weeks and later pardoned.
He died without direct heir in 1395.

"William Cheyne"
The city's recorder (legal expert).

"senior"
This could refer to the aldermen, or perhaps just the aldermannic class.

"a harmonious and communal frame of mind"
The original expresses it as ad concordiam ac unitatem;
Brembre's wish must have been to suppress any opinions contrary to
his own, but the chronicler is unlikely to have been aware of that
and would simply have perceived it as desirable that the electorate
act in a peaceful manner to arrive at a decision beneficial to
the community and in which all acquiesced  the concept, so
often expressed in medieval writings regardless of the reality,
of communal unanimity. Concordia could imply a spirit of
compromise: the democratic principle of accepting a decision reached
through due process.

"quell those"
One source claims that the armed men advanced on the Twyford faction,
crying "Slay! Slay!".

"Newgate"
One of the most unpleasant of the city prisons.

"whereby dissension arose"
As examples of the continuing problems Brembre's government was
facing while the hope of the reformers remained alive: between
late 1383 and spring 1385 securities were taken to pressure
numerous citizens to keep the peace and obey city officers; most
ranged from £40 to £300, but that from Northampton himself
was for £5,000 and More's was for £4,000. This was quite
apart from the arrests and mainprises following the armed battle
at the mayoral election of 1384. In May 1384 grocer William Mayhew
was condemned to a year's imprisonment, to be followed by an
unspecified fine, for having publicly criticized the government,
accusing it of maladministration and injustice, including
describing the recent execution of John Constantyn as unjust;
Mayhew was released upon surety for future good behaviour.
Bail was given in March 1385 to cordwainer John Remes, who had
confessed to having publicly said before the last parliament
that there would be no peace in the city until Brembre was done
away with. In September of that year a barber was thrown in
gaol for spreading the rumour that Northampton had returned to London.

"principal goods"
While the insinuation here seems very vague, in the context of
the times it was possibly understood as implying that Austin
had secreted weapons in various locations.

"Wigmours"
A Roger Wygemor was among 139 persons accused of disturbing
the peace around the time of Brembre's electoral defeat of Northampton.

"Hugh Fastolf"
Fastolf was a wealthy member of one of the leading Yarmouth
families and began his career
as a fishmonger at Yarmouth, where he served numerous terms as
its chief executive officer, showed his martial abilities by
serving as an admiral in the war against France, and was a
prominent player in local vendettas  being accused of
homicide as early as 1355. With years of service to the Crown
already under his belt, shortly after the accession of Richard II
he moved his base of operations to London, and transferred from
fishmongering to the more powerful grocers' gild, after marrying
Joan Hanhamstead, the widow of a grocer and granddaughter of
a former mayor. He served as a London alderman in 1381 and
from 1384 until shortly before his death in 1392. His political
affiliations brought him widespread unpopularity; during the
Peasants' Revolt there were attacks on his property in Yarmouth,
at Caister (by the Norfolk rebels), on his manor at Bradwell
(looted by the Suffolk rebels), and at London although this was
due to a private quarrel. During the first phase of his career
he seems to have links to Gaunt, but during the second he was
associated with the Ricardian party, serving as a royal commissioner
and acting as deputy of Simon Burley in the latter's office of
constable of Dover Castle and warden of the Cinque Ports, although
he later had a run-in with Ralph Ramsey, a Yarmouth man with
London interests who was another of Burley's followers (but later
switched allegiance to Henry Bolingbroke). It is not surprising
to find him associated with the Brembre faction; he was in fact
elected sheriff a couple of weeks after Banham stated his
accusations against Austin, and so was responsible for follow-up.

"St. Laurence's"
The church stood at the southwest corner of the Guildhall complex,
from which Strohm concludes that Hochon, Banham and Hore had been
posted in the room facing it so as to lie in ambush. Assuming
the action that follows actually did occur, it is assumed to have
taken place after Brembre's forces had routed his opponents and
taken control of the Guildhall; after all that tension, Fastolf
needed to relieve himself.

"I, John Hore"
Possibly a scribal error, confusing John Banham with his colleague
Hore, or an indication that Hore was joining Banham in making
the accusations.

"stolen a thousand pounds"
The implication is presumably one of customs avoidance.

"everything contained in the document is true"
This was not a conviction, but simply a statement by the jury
that the evidence (or presumption) was sufficient to warrant bringing
the case to court  although the jury does not address what
the nature of the crime(s) might be, other than the felony in
concealment of customs.

"Nicholas Extone"
Fishmonger Nicholas Exton was elected in March 1382 to the aldermanry
of Billingsgate, a ward whose aldermen had been fishmongers since 1358.
However, his support for Brembre resulted in Northampton removing him
from the office in August. Elected sheriff in 1384, he returned as alderman
in 1385, remaining so until 1391, during which period he served his two
consecutive mayoralties. As successor to Brembre in the mayoralty and
a continuator of Brembre's policies, Exton nonetheless found it politic
to sacrifice Brembre to his enemies and to the scaffold, rather than risk
drawing the attention of those enemies towards the city and himself.

"motivations of the people"
Bird, The Turbulent London of Richard II is the principal
study of this part of London history and gives a detailed analysis
of the background of Northampton's supporters and opponents, to
show that a victualling vs. non-victualling classification is
useful only as a generalization. A re-interpretation is provided
by Pamela Nightingale, "Capitalists, crafts and constitutional change
in late fourteenth-century London," Past and Present,
no.124 (August 1989), 3-35; for her (p.33), "Northampton was
not a radical leader fighting for the destruction of the merchant
oligarchy and for its replacement by a more broadly based civic
government. He was a member of that oligarchy .... pursuing, first,
the narrow sectional interests of his mystery, and secondly, his
own personal power." Although parts of her argument are unconvincing,
she offers important new insights, particularly in regard to
the complexity of and shifts in the local political situation,
and in the effect of national economic policies on the motivations
of the various London interest groups. Two papers by Paul Strohm,
particularly the latter, clarify the process by which Northampton's
conviction was obtained: "Politics and Poetics: Usk and Chaucer
in the 1380s," pp.83-112 in Literary Practice and Social Change
in Britain, 1380-1530, ed. Lee Patterson, Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1990; "The Textual Vicissitudes of Usk's
'Appeal'," ch.7 in Hochon's Arrow: The Social Imagination of
Fourteenth-Century Texts (by Strohm), Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1992. The text of Usk's writings have been
made available in an online edition produced by R. Allen Shoaf,
Thomas Usk, The Testament of Love, Kalamazoo (Mich.): TEAMS,
1998, http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/uskintro.htm

"earlier end of the fourteenth century"
The key account is in Gwyn Williams, Medieval London, from Commune
to Capital, London: Athlone Press, 1963, although it has not been
free of criticism.

"described as"Ibid., 282.

"capitalist elite"
Medieval merchants who did most of their buying and selling in person,
travelling regularly to markets, fairs, and even abroad to accomplish
this, are often described by historians as capitalist (without there
being any Marxist implications) on the grounds that the operations of
those engaged in wholesale trade typically accumulated capital to support
their transactional capability and further the growth of their business.
By the Late Middle Ages this 'petty capitalism' was gradually giving way to
'mercantile capitalism' (or 'mercantilism' as called when perceived as
an economic system and philosophy applicable to the Early Modern period),
whose characteristics included: wealthy and increasingly sedentary merchants
using agents (either peripatetic or based in major market centres), other
than kin or apprentices, to conduct their business; the use of increasingly
sophisticated credit instruments; the use of accumulated cash to earn profit
through loans or investments in commercial enterprises of other merchants,
through partnerships. Some of these merchant capitalists joined forces in
trading companies, while some invested in industrial development. These
developments were more pronounced outside England (notably in Italy).

"has been suggested"
Nightingale, op.cit., 17.

"reforms of 1319"
Nightingale, op.cit., 20, sees Gaunt's hand here, in
Northampton being able to obtain a royal inspeximus of
the 1319 ordinance; she argues that Gaunt saw the opportunity
to get rid of his opponents among the aldermen and install instead
a group obliged to him.

"committee of eight"
One cannot help but be reminded here of the early role of
Stace and le Rente in
compiling an new custumal for Ipswich, the prelude to their rise
to power in that town.

"popularity of this attack"
Members of the patriciate had their own reason for approving of
the assault on the fishmongers, whose gild had obtained for its own
court an extraordinary level of jurisdiction over legal cases
involving fishmongers, to the detriment of the authority of the
city courts.

"resentful"
There is also some indication that Usk had other grudges concerning
money owed him, either stretching back to an earlier period of
involvement in Northampton's business affairs, or related to
efforts in assisting fellow rebels (Essex?) avoid capture.

"observes"
This translation and others here are by Shoaf, op.cit.,
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rashoaf/modusk/musk/one/6.htm

"uncertain"
An interesting analysis of the accusations is given by Paul Strohm
in chapter 1 of his Hochon's Arrow, as well as by Prescott
in his introduction to the transcription he offers in the same book.

"Thomas Favent"
In his narrative
of the proceedings of the Merciless Parliament. Favent concluded his
description of Brembre's end with a wry editorial comment on holding
political power: "Behold how good and pleasant it is to be raised up
to honors! It seems to me better to carry out business at home among
paupers than be thus lordly among kings, and at the end climb
the ladder among thieves; since it is more a matter of onerousness
than honor to assume the name of honor." [trans. Anthony Galloway]